Podcasts > Making Sense with Sam Harris > #448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

By Waking Up with Sam Harris

In this episode of Making Sense, Sam Harris and his guest explore fundamental questions in moral philosophy through classic thought experiments. They examine how philosophers use these experiments to isolate specific ethical questions, discussing the famous trolley problem and its variations that reveal how people's moral judgments can shift based on subtle changes in circumstances.

The conversation delves into consequentialism—the theory that judges actions solely by their outcomes—and its limitations when applied to real-world moral dilemmas. Harris and his guest also examine Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment, which raises questions about moral obligations and the relationship between physical proximity and ethical duty, particularly in the context of global poverty and suffering.

Listen to the original

#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Dec 8, 2025 episode of the Making Sense with Sam Harris

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

1-Page Summary

Thought Experiments in Moral Philosophy

Edmonds explains that philosophers use thought experiments as tools to strip away real-world complications and focus on specific ethical questions. While these artificial scenarios help isolate variables that influence our moral judgments, they can be controversial because our moral intuitions are shaped by real-life circumstances rather than extraordinary conditions. Sam Harris adds that these moral intuitions might be tied to consequences or even represent moral illusions.

The trolley problem, introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, presents a scenario where one must decide whether to divert a runaway train to kill one person instead of five. Harris notes that about 95% of people find this acceptable. However, when Judith Jarvis Thomson modified the scenario to involve pushing someone off a bridge to stop the train, most people found it morally unacceptable despite the similar outcome. This difference, Harris explains, stems from the direct manipulation of another person's body as a means to an end.

Consequentialism Principles and Application to Moral Dilemmas

Edmonds describes consequentialism as an ethical theory focusing solely on outcomes to determine morality. Under pure consequentialism, the trolley scenarios should be judged equally since their outcomes are identical. However, Harris suggests considering secondary psychological consequences in moral judgments. The doctrine of double effect distinguishes between intended harm and unintended consequences, highlighting a limitation of consequentialism that doesn't account for intentions behind actions.

Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" Thought Experiment

Edmonds discusses Peter Singer's influential "Shallow Pond" thought experiment, which examines moral obligations and personal sacrifice. The experiment poses a scenario about saving a drowning child at personal cost, which Singer uses to challenge our different responses to proximate versus distant suffering. Singer draws a parallel between the immediate duty to save a drowning child and the moral imperative to help those in extreme poverty, regardless of geographical distance.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Thought experiments are imaginary scenarios used to explore complex ideas by isolating specific factors. They allow philosophers to test intuitions and principles without real-world distractions. These experiments help reveal underlying moral principles or contradictions. They are valuable because they clarify thinking and challenge assumptions.
  • Edmonds is a philosopher known for his work on ethics and the use of thought experiments to clarify moral reasoning. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and philosopher who explores the science of morality and argues that moral truths can be understood through reason and evidence. Both contribute to moral philosophy by analyzing how we make ethical decisions and the role of intuition and consequences. Their work bridges philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience to deepen understanding of moral judgment.
  • The trolley problem is a classic ethical dilemma used to explore moral decision-making. It highlights the conflict between utilitarianism (maximizing overall good) and deontological ethics (following moral rules). The problem reveals how people weigh the value of individual lives versus collective outcomes. It also exposes how context and emotional involvement affect moral judgments.
  • Judith Jarvis Thomson's modification involves a scenario where you must push a large person off a bridge to stop the trolley and save five others. This introduces direct physical harm to an individual as a means to an end, unlike the original trolley problem where harm is indirect. The moral intuition against pushing someone reflects concerns about using a person merely as a tool. This highlights the ethical significance of personal involvement and bodily autonomy.
  • "Direct manipulation of another person's body as a means to an end" means using someone's physical body intentionally to achieve a goal, rather than just causing an outcome indirectly. In moral philosophy, this is seen as more problematic because it treats the person as a tool, violating their autonomy. For example, pushing someone onto tracks to stop a train uses their body directly, unlike flipping a switch to divert the train. This distinction influences why people judge similar outcomes differently based on how the harm is caused.
  • Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges actions by their outcomes, aiming to maximize overall good or happiness. It holds that the morality of an act depends solely on its results, not on intentions or inherent qualities. Utilitarianism is a common form, focusing on the greatest good for the greatest number. Critics argue it can justify harmful means if they produce beneficial ends.
  • Secondary psychological consequences refer to the emotional and mental effects that actions have on people beyond the immediate physical outcomes. These include feelings like guilt, shame, or trauma experienced by those involved or bystanders. Such consequences influence moral judgments because people consider not just the results but also how actions affect psychological well-being. This concept challenges purely outcome-based ethics by incorporating human emotional responses into moral evaluation.
  • The doctrine of double effect is a principle in moral philosophy that distinguishes between intended consequences and those that are merely foreseen but unintended. It holds that causing harm is more morally acceptable if the harm is not the intended outcome but a side effect of achieving a good result. This doctrine is often used to justify actions that have both good and bad effects, provided the bad effect is not the means to the good end. It emphasizes the importance of the agent's intention in evaluating the morality of an action.
  • Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher known for his work in bioethics and animal rights. He advocates for utilitarianism, emphasizing reducing suffering and promoting well-being. Singer's work challenges traditional moral boundaries, urging equal consideration of interests regardless of species or distance. His "Shallow Pond" thought experiment highlights the ethical duty to help others, influencing global poverty and humanitarian debates.
  • The "Shallow Pond" thought experiment asks if you would save a drowning child in a shallow pond, even if it meant ruining your expensive clothes. Peter Singer uses this to argue that if we feel morally compelled to save the child nearby, we should also help distant people suffering from poverty. The experiment challenges the idea that physical distance lessens our moral responsibility. It highlights the inconsistency in how we treat immediate versus distant moral obligations.
  • Proximate suffering refers to harm or need occurring close to us, physically or emotionally, often triggering stronger immediate moral responses. Distant suffering involves harm happening far away, either geographically or socially, which can feel less urgent or personal. This distinction affects how people prioritize helping others, despite similar moral reasons to assist both. Peter Singer challenges this bias, arguing that distance should not lessen our moral obligation to help.
  • Peter Singer argues that just as we feel a strong moral obligation to save a drowning child nearby, we should feel similarly compelled to help people suffering from extreme poverty far away. The physical distance does not lessen the moral duty to prevent harm when we can do so at little cost to ourselves. This challenges the common tendency to prioritize immediate, visible suffering over distant, less visible crises. Singer uses this analogy to promote global ethical responsibility beyond local or national boundaries.

Counterarguments

  • Thought experiments may oversimplify complex moral situations, failing to capture the nuances of real-world ethical decision-making.
  • Relying on moral intuitions in thought experiments may not always provide clear guidance due to the diversity of moral intuitions among different people and cultures.
  • The trolley problem and similar thought experiments may not be effective in guiding practical ethical decision-making because they are highly contrived and unlikely to occur in real life.
  • The focus on consequences in consequentialism may overlook the importance of deontological considerations, such as rights, duties, and principles, which many believe are essential to moral reasoning.
  • Consequentialism can lead to morally counterintuitive results, such as justifying harmful actions if they lead to a greater overall good, which some critics argue is a significant flaw.
  • The doctrine of double effect relies on the distinction between intended and unintended consequences, which can be difficult to apply in practice and may not always align with moral common sense.
  • Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment may be criticized for its assumption that moral obligations are the same regardless of distance, which some argue overlooks important relational factors and the practicalities of helping others.
  • Singer's argument could be seen as demanding too much of individuals, potentially leading to moral burnout or a sense of futility in the face of overwhelming global problems.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

Thought Experiments in Moral Philosophy

Philosophers often employ thought experiments to distill complex ethical dilemmas into their essentials, revealing insights into our moral reasoning. Through these artificial scenarios, we examine moral intuitions and the variables that influence our judgments.

Thought Experiments in Philosophy Isolate and Examine Factors Influencing Moral Intuitions

Edmonds describes thought experiments in philosophy as tools to isolate extraneous circumstances to focus on distinct areas of a problem. They create artificial worlds that are clearer to analyze because the real world is fraught with complications that can muddle our understanding.

Moral Philosophy Thought Experiments Can Be Controversial Due to Our Intuitions Being Unsuited to Artificial Scenarios

However, Edmonds notes that these experiments can be controversial. The strange and artificial scenarios can challenge our moral intuitions, which are honed by real-life circumstances, not the extraordinary conditions posited in thought experiments. Philosophers often craft hypotheticals that are insulated from wider societal effects which, Edmonds argues, challenges people's intuitions, as it is difficult for them to imagine these scenarios without assuming there would be some leak to the public.

Thought Experiments Simplify Situations and Highlight Moral Dilemmas

Thought Experiments Test Specific Variables' Inf ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Thought Experiments in Moral Philosophy

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • Thought experiments may oversimplify complex moral issues, leading to conclusions that are not applicable in the nuanced reality of human life.
  • The artificial nature of thought experiments might not only challenge our intuitions but also mislead us by presenting scenarios that are too detached from practical considerations.
  • Moral intuitions developed in response to real-life situations may still be relevant in assessing artificial scenarios, as they are grounded in social and evolutionary processes that have shaped human ethics.
  • The isolation of variables in thought experiments may ignore the interconnectedness of moral factors, which in reality often influence each other in complex ways.
  • Some critics argue that thought experiments in moral philosophy can inadvertently perpetuate certain biases or overlook the perspectives of different cultures, genders, or socioeconomic backgrounds.
  • There is a debate over whether thought experiments can truly capture the emotional and psychological complexities involved in moral decision-making.
  • The focus on individual moral intuitions in thought experiments may neglect the role of collective decision-making and so ...

Actionables

  • You can develop a personal code of ethics by reflecting on past decisions and identifying the values that guided you. Start by writing down significant choices you've made, and for each, list the factors that influenced your decision. Look for patterns in these factors to determine the core values that consistently appear. This exercise will help you understand your moral reasoning and prepare you for future ethical dilemmas.
  • Create a "moral journal" to track your reactions to hypothetical scenarios you encounter in books, movies, or conversations. Whenever you come across a moral dilemma, write it down and detail your intuitive response, then analyze why you feel that way. Over time, you'll gain insight into the specific variables that shape your moral judgments, which can help you make more informed decisions in real life.
  • Engage in discussions with friends or family about ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

The Trolley Problem and Related Thought Experiments

The trolley problem, introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, presents a moral dilemma involving a runaway train and offers insight into ethical decision-making.

Trolley Problem: Divert Trolley to Kill one Instead of Five

Philippa Foot's original trolley problem scenario asks if it’s permissible to divert a runaway train to a different track where it will kill one person instead of five.

Most Acceptably Divert Trolley to Save More, Causing one Death

Harris notes that a vast majority of people—95%, according to his discussions—believe it is acceptable to divert the train, thus sacrificing one person to save five.

Pushing to Stop Trolley Is Morally Unacceptable Despite Similar Outcomes

The ethical debate intensifies with a variation of the problem where direct physical action is required to stop the train, leading to moral intuitions clashing despite similar outcomes.

Distinction: Diverting the Trolley Vs. Using Another's Body

Judith Jarvis Thomson added a twist to the trolley problem where one could stop the train by pushing a man with a heavy rucksack off a bridge. Contrasting with the original problem, this scenario does not gain the same consensus amo ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The Trolley Problem and Related Thought Experiments

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The consensus on the acceptability of diverting the trolley might not be as high as 95% in all populations or when considering different cultural or ethical backgrounds.
  • Some argue that the trolley problem is too simplistic and doesn't accurately reflect real-life moral decisions, which are often more complex and involve more variables.
  • Critics of utilitarianism might argue that the trolley problem is biased towards utilitarian ethical reasoning and doesn't adequately address deontological or virtue ethics perspectives.
  • The distinction between the two scenarios might be challenged on the grounds that both actions are forms of utilitarian calculation and that the physical involvement in the second scenario doesn't necessarily make it more morally reprehensible.
  • Some philosophers argue that the trolley problem's focus on hypothetical scenarios distracts from more pressing and practical ethical issues that need attention.
  • There is debate ove ...

Actionables

  • Reflect on your daily decisions by journaling scenarios where you have to choose between lesser and greater harms. Write down situations you encounter, such as deciding whether to cancel plans with one friend to support another who needs you more. Analyze your choices and the reasoning behind them to understand your moral compass better.
  • Create a personal "ethical code" document that outlines your values and principles when facing moral dilemmas. For example, if you value honesty over comfort, you might commit to always telling the truth, even when it could lead to awkward situations. Refer to this document when faced with tough choices to guide your actions consistently.
  • Engage in role-playing exercises with friends where one person ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

Consequentialism Principles and Application to Moral Dilemmas

Exploring the ethical theory of consequentialism, Edmonds and Harris delve into how it applies to moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem, while also discussing its limitations including the doctrine of double effect.

Consequentialism: Morality Is Determined by Outcomes, Not Actions

Consequentialism is the ethical theory that focuses solely on outcomes to determine the morality of an action, with no inherent concern for the nature of the actions themselves.

From a Consequentialist View, all Trolley Problem Variations Should Have the Same Judgment, as Outcomes Are Equivalent

Edmonds asserts that, according to pure consequentialism, there should be no moral distinction between flipping a switch or pushing a person to halt a trolley—if in both scenarios, one person dies and five are saved, the outcomes are equivalent, and therefore the actions are equally justifiable.

Harris points out the different psychological outcomes between such scenarios. He suggests that a more nuanced consequentialist perspective should consider these secondary, psychological consequences, thereby enriching the discussion around morality beyond mere immediate physical results.

Critics Argue Consequentialism Overlooks Key Moral Intuitions, Like the Intent-Foreseeing Distinction

Criticism arises in the context of consequentialism as it seems, on the surface, to disregard the nuances of moral judgment, such as the contrasting intentions behind similar outcomes.

Doctrine of Double Effect: Means to End Vs. Unintended Consequence

The doctrine of double effect distinguishes between actions where harm is intentional and those where harm is an unintended byproduct. Edmonds, referencing this doctrine, discusses the moral intuition that perceives a difference between intending harm as a necessary part of saving others (pushing the fat man onto the tracks) versus harm being a forese ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Consequentialism Principles and Application to Moral Dilemmas

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics involving a runaway trolley headed toward five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Variations include pushing a large person onto the tracks to stop the trolley, raising questions about direct versus indirect harm. These scenarios test how people weigh outcomes against moral principles like intention and action type.
  • Pure consequentialism is the view that only the outcomes of actions matter morally, without considering intentions or the nature of the actions themselves. It treats all actions leading to the same result as equally right or wrong. This approach can conflict with common moral intuitions that distinguish between how outcomes are achieved. It often faces criticism for ignoring factors like intent, rights, and justice.
  • The doctrine of double effect is a principle in ethics that distinguishes between intended harm and harm that is merely foreseen but unintended. It holds that causing harm is morally permissible if it is not the means to an end and if the good effect outweighs the bad. This doctrine is often used to justify actions where harm occurs as a side effect, not as the primary goal. It helps explain why some harmful actions are judged differently based on the actor’s intention.
  • The distinction between intended harm and foreseen but unintended harm is central to the doctrine of double effect. Intended harm means the harmful outcome is the agent’s goal or means to achieve an end. Foreseen but unintended harm occurs when the harm is a side effect the agent anticipates but does not desire. This distinction helps justify some actions that cause harm if the harm is not the agent’s direct aim.
  • Psychological and secondary consequences refer to the indirect effects of an action on people's feelings, trust, and social relationships. These consequences can influence overall well-being and societal stability beyond immediate physical outcomes. Considering them helps capture the full impact of actions, making ethical evaluations more comprehensive. Ignoring these factors may lead to morally incomplete or misleading judgments.
  • The analogy illustrates the doctrine of double effect by comparing two actions with harmful side effects. Targeting a munitions factory aims to destroy military resources, with civilian deaths as unintended collateral damage. Deliberately attacking civilians intends harm as a direct goal, which is morally different. This distinction helps explain why some harmful outcomes are considered more permissible than others.
  • The ethical dilemma involves whether it is morally acceptable to euthanize a healthy person to harvest their organs and save multiple lives. This challenges the principle of respecting individual rights and bodily autonomy. It raises concerns about trust in medical professionals and potential abuses of power. The dilemma tests if good outcomes justify violating fundamental moral norms.
  • The "intent-foreseeing distinction" refers to the m ...

Counterarguments

  • Consequentialism may lead to moral paralysis due to the difficulty of accurately predicting and evaluating all consequences of an action.
  • It can be argued that consequentialism fails to respect individual rights by justifying the sacrifice of some individuals for the greater good.
  • Some critics suggest that consequentialism is too demanding, as it requires individuals to always act in a way that maximizes overall good, which can be an unrealistic expectation.
  • Deontological ethics offers a counterpoint by emphasizing the importance of the moral nature of actions themselves, rather than their outcomes.
  • Virtue ethics provides an alternative view by focusing on the character and virtues of the moral agent rather than the morality of specific actions or their consequences.
  • Rule consequentialism attempts to address some criticisms by suggesting that we should follow rules that generally lead to the best consequences, rather than evaluating each individual action.
  • Some argue that consequentialism does not adequately account for justice and fairness, as it may justify actions that benefit the majority but unfairly disadvantage a minority.
  • Critics may also po ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" Thought Experiment

David Edmonds explores moral philosophy and the concept of effective altruism through the lens of Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment.

Singer's Thought Experiment: The Obligation to Save a Drowning Child At Personal Cost

Edmonds' book, "Death in a Shallow Pond, a Philosopher, a Drowning Child, and Strangers in Need," includes a biography of Peter Singer and traces the development of the effective altruism movement inspired by Singer's work. It discusses consequentialism and addresses the subjects through the thought experiment known as Singer's "Shallow Pond." Edmonds describes Singer's thought experiment as the second most famous in moral philosophy, arguing that it is more influential than the trolley problem and centers on notions of sacrifice and moral duty in life-or-death situations.

Moral Duty to Save Drowning Child Despite Sacrifice

The discussion of Singer's thought experiment relates to the moral obligations individuals have, such as the obligation to save a drowning child even if it comes at a personal cost. This thought experiment prompts reflection on our intuitions about moral duty and sacrifice, contributing to an understanding of consequentialism and moral intuitions.

"Shallow Pond" Exposes Moral Inconsistency In Responses to Distant Vs. Proximate Suffering

Harris alludes to Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment by comparing the common response to the trolley ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" Thought Experiment

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The thought experiment assumes a clear-cut moral duty that may not account for the complexity of real-world scenarios, where the consequences of intervening are not always predictable or beneficial.
  • Singer's argument may oversimplify the moral landscape by equating the act of saving a drowning child with the act of helping those in extreme poverty, which involves more complex social, economic, and political factors.
  • The thought experiment may not sufficiently address the issue of moral distance and the psychological differences in how humans perceive and react to those who are physically near versus those who are far away.
  • Critics of consequentialism might argue that the thought experiment fails to consider the importance of deontological ethics, which focuses on the adherence to duty or rules rather than the consequences of actions.
  • Some may argue that the thought experiment places an unrealistic expectation on individuals to bear the burden of global problems, which might be more effectively addressed through systemic change rather than individual sacrifice.
  • The thought experiment could be criticized for potentially leading to moral burnout or compassion fatigue if individuals take its implications ...

Actionables

  • You can start a "Moral Action Journal" to document daily decisions that involve helping others, noting the proximity of the need and your response. This journaling activity encourages self-reflection on your actions and decisions, helping you identify patterns in your willingness to help based on proximity. For example, you might write down when you chose to donate to a local charity over an international one and explore the reasons behind that choice.
  • Create a "Sacrifice Scale" to evaluate your readiness to help others, assigning points to various actions based on the level of personal sacrifice involved. This scale can be a simple list where actions like donating money score lower than actions that require more personal involvement, like volunteering your time. By regularly reviewing and updating this scale, you can challenge yourself to take on higher-scoring actions and increase your commitment to moral duties.
  • Develop a "Distant Suffering Awareness Plan" where you commit to l ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA