In our debut episode of 'Moral Mayhem,' we delve into the deeply contentious Israel-Palestine conflict, focusing on a critical yet overlooked perspective.
This was an excellent discussion! I found it a refreshing way to tackle this complex topic. It's a unique method of framing the debate—and it works. You guys nailed the crux areas, didn't shy away from the hard issues involved, and demonstrated an understanding of many of the hard trade-offs involved—props for that.
Yet, when you signed off after 40 minutes, to me, you were just getting started! I see other podcasts of yours that are around 90-105 minutes long. Given the quality of your discussion, this topic could easily sustain that. You set the table beautifully, but then...dinner's over before the main course?!
Don't get me wrong—I don't expect you to solve peace in the Middle East in one podcast. (might take 3 if y’all buckle down /s) But after 40 minutes of framing your discussion so well, I'm left hungry for more! I enjoyed the framework, your back-and-forth, your subtle disagreements and pushback—but I wasn’t “left” with anything.
It's like you're Evel Knievel—you've laid out the runway, you're on the bike, picking up speed, now you're airborne... and then the credits roll. Where's our landing...good/crash-and-burn/mixed...whatever it may be!
I’d love for you guys to return to that 40th minute and keep going. Call it Part II…
…because I’m waiting to hear you guys go in one of two difficult directions:
1) Not merely saying everyone won't get what they want—any reasonable observer should accept that by now. Who should get what and why? Or by what framework - since your discussion is not purely object-level. How should we decide? What does the veil of ignorance tell or inform us here (borrowing your reference)?
Some might say, “What do they know? Who are they to say?” But to be stopped by that, why discuss it at all?
2) Or, really grapple with crafting a framework where everyone gets what they want. (Improbable? Sure. But at this point, even the best solutions seem improbable, so why not?)
Now, you may ask, “Dear Listener, where is your Middle East peace plan/framework?” Lol, iunno 🤷🏽♀️ But I didn't decide to do a podcast on this topic!
More seriously, I came to hear you. You guys bring intelligence, understanding, and good-faith discussion to the table. Your humility in naming the difficulties and facing the trade-offs head-on is refreshing. I want to hear where you land—it helps me refine and test my own thinking. Your struggle is doing me a favor!
Secretly—selfishly, I believe your table-setting and intuitions are leading you down a specific path, and I want to see 1) if I'm right about that and 2) if you’ll say it out loud.
I'm a Sam Harris fan, too. You seemed on board with “The Moral Landscape.” Now, it need not frame the discussion per se, but I heard it guiding your intuitions. How far are you willing to take that framework when it comes to Israel-Palestine? If human well-being can be measured, if there’s a sense in which it is “objective,”…if some versions of the Middle East are better/more preferable than others…that has policy prescriptions and implications...and well…you chose this topic, not me, lol
Now, maybe y’all won’t land where I think you’re headed—that's fine, too. There are lots of interesting places to explore and land. But I see a possible world where there lie difficult prescriptions or a maybe framework where everything doesn’t end up 50/50—some party's values get prioritized, and others dismissed. And I want to know if, like Sam Harris, you guys are the kind of people who say hard, true things (with compassion).
I don't want to influence the direction of your discussion—it was heading in a fantastic direction. But I sooooo want to see how you guys land your still airborne motorcycle. It's not about pulling off a perfect landing—not on a jump of this immense difficulty.
Knievel demonstrates it’s as much about us getting to watch a brutal crash landing, seeing you wipe out…get up bloodied, dust yourselves off, and say:
This was an excellent discussion! I found it a refreshing way to tackle this complex topic. It's a unique method of framing the debate—and it works. You guys nailed the crux areas, didn't shy away from the hard issues involved, and demonstrated an understanding of many of the hard trade-offs involved—props for that.
Yet, when you signed off after 40 minutes, to me, you were just getting started! I see other podcasts of yours that are around 90-105 minutes long. Given the quality of your discussion, this topic could easily sustain that. You set the table beautifully, but then...dinner's over before the main course?!
Don't get me wrong—I don't expect you to solve peace in the Middle East in one podcast. (might take 3 if y’all buckle down /s) But after 40 minutes of framing your discussion so well, I'm left hungry for more! I enjoyed the framework, your back-and-forth, your subtle disagreements and pushback—but I wasn’t “left” with anything.
It's like you're Evel Knievel—you've laid out the runway, you're on the bike, picking up speed, now you're airborne... and then the credits roll. Where's our landing...good/crash-and-burn/mixed...whatever it may be!
I’d love for you guys to return to that 40th minute and keep going. Call it Part II…
…because I’m waiting to hear you guys go in one of two difficult directions:
1) Not merely saying everyone won't get what they want—any reasonable observer should accept that by now. Who should get what and why? Or by what framework - since your discussion is not purely object-level. How should we decide? What does the veil of ignorance tell or inform us here (borrowing your reference)?
Some might say, “What do they know? Who are they to say?” But to be stopped by that, why discuss it at all?
2) Or, really grapple with crafting a framework where everyone gets what they want. (Improbable? Sure. But at this point, even the best solutions seem improbable, so why not?)
Now, you may ask, “Dear Listener, where is your Middle East peace plan/framework?” Lol, iunno 🤷🏽♀️ But I didn't decide to do a podcast on this topic!
More seriously, I came to hear you. You guys bring intelligence, understanding, and good-faith discussion to the table. Your humility in naming the difficulties and facing the trade-offs head-on is refreshing. I want to hear where you land—it helps me refine and test my own thinking. Your struggle is doing me a favor!
Secretly—selfishly, I believe your table-setting and intuitions are leading you down a specific path, and I want to see 1) if I'm right about that and 2) if you’ll say it out loud.
I'm a Sam Harris fan, too. You seemed on board with “The Moral Landscape.” Now, it need not frame the discussion per se, but I heard it guiding your intuitions. How far are you willing to take that framework when it comes to Israel-Palestine? If human well-being can be measured, if there’s a sense in which it is “objective,”…if some versions of the Middle East are better/more preferable than others…that has policy prescriptions and implications...and well…you chose this topic, not me, lol
Now, maybe y’all won’t land where I think you’re headed—that's fine, too. There are lots of interesting places to explore and land. But I see a possible world where there lie difficult prescriptions or a maybe framework where everything doesn’t end up 50/50—some party's values get prioritized, and others dismissed. And I want to know if, like Sam Harris, you guys are the kind of people who say hard, true things (with compassion).
I don't want to influence the direction of your discussion—it was heading in a fantastic direction. But I sooooo want to see how you guys land your still airborne motorcycle. It's not about pulling off a perfect landing—not on a jump of this immense difficulty.
Knievel demonstrates it’s as much about us getting to watch a brutal crash landing, seeing you wipe out…get up bloodied, dust yourselves off, and say:
“Damn…that was rough...*smiles*
Same time next week?”