Ask Matt

9/12/2021

Have a question about one of my books or videos? About studying or teaching ethics? Ethics bowl?

Email matt (at) mattdeaton.com, use the contact form at mattdeaton.com or click "Comments," scroll to the bottom and hit "Leave a Reply."

Cheers, and thanks for reaching out,
Matt

29 Comments

Gary M. link

7/5/2017 03:08:15 pm

What does it mean to "lose one's humanity?" If I kill someone in self-defense, does that qualify? Who determines if the action was ethical? Is it the individual who has killed or is the label more properly ascribed by the larger community? What role, if any, do extenuating circumstances play in making this determination?

Matt link

7/6/2017 10:43:14 am

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your very thoughtful and complex question!

People are said to lose their humanity when, usually due to extreme circumstances, they become desensitized to the suffering and welfare of others. Imagine a Hunger Games scenario where people are forced to kill one another to survive. It's reasonable to assume that such an experience would shape a person's psyche in a more ruthless and less compassionate direction -- make them think more like a instinctual beast, and less like a reflective member of our moral community. The severity of the circumstances combined with the person's resiliency and resulting desensitization would determine to what extent we'd say their humanity had been lost.

I wouldn't think a single instance of killing in self-defense would so impact a person's compassion that we'd consider their humanity completely lost. Depending on the circumstances, it would probably be traumatizing. But I wouldn't expect an otherwise caring and sensitive person to turn fully egoist and callous after a single incident. Being reminded of how fragile human life is might even have the opposite effect, causing them to become more sensitive and caring rather than less.

On who would determine whether the act was ethical, there isn't a final earthly judge. We're all free and invited to reflect and evaluate the ethics of all sorts of scenarios. And while some evaluations are better than others, figuring out which are the good ones is something we just do collectively and cooperatively via a living conversation, with no single person or group able to authoritatively declare who's right and who's wrong. (Notice that denying a moral authority isn't the same as denying objective answers to ethical questions -- just because we can't conclusively prove who's correct doesn't mean all answers are equally good.)

Last, maybe you were asking about who should get to determine whether a person has lost their humanity because you had implications involving punishment in mind. As I implied above, a black and white "yes, their humanity is lost" or "no, they still possess their humanity" judgment would be appropriate -- desensitization occurs in degrees. But if you did have questions of punishment in mind, in the philosophy of law literature there are two main reasons to justify punishment -- 1) to deter future crimes, both for the offender and potential offenders who witness the punishment, and 2) for pure retribution -- to make the offender suffer to an extent similar to the harm they caused (this is called "retributivism"). These motives/justifications for punishment combined with the commonly accepted principle of proportionality -- that a punishment's severity should approximate the crime's severity -- suggest that yes, circumstances surrounding any event, including acts of lethal self-defense, matter. For example, was the person in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death? Or did they recklessly and unjustifiably overreact to a non-threat? Figuring that out would definitely impact the appropriate punishment, if any.

Thanks again for your question, and I hope this reply was helpful,
Matt

Gary M.

7/7/2017 10:12:24 pm

Wonderful response, Matt! Very thoughtful. You are gifted. Thank you.

Max Minshull

7/5/2017 04:31:44 pm

If you had to explicate your opinion on whether objective or subjective morality is closer to the truth, what would you say in 10 or less sentences?

Matt link

7/6/2017 10:58:29 am

Hi Max,

Thanks so much for the question.

We can comfortably conclude that ethical questions have objective answers because the alternative entails such ridiculous implications. For example, being a moral subjectivist means believing that all ethical positions are mere matters of personal opinion, with all being equally good and equally immune from criticism. Therefore, if you're a moral subjectivist, you'd have to accept and endorse any and all views and actions as morally appropriate no matter how repugnant. Two examples I use in Ethics in a Nutshell are 1) of a person who believes that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable, and 2) a person who locks you in their basement and tortures you.

If you're a moral subjectivist you have to say that the first person is correct -- that torturing babies for fun is indeed morally acceptable -- and that while you may not enjoy being trapped in a basement, there's nothing immoral, unethical, wrong, etc. about the situation -- that your torturer is just as moral and upstanding and ethically correct as the next person, no matter how terribly you're being treated.

Both of those scenarios conflict with our natural moral sense. It’s obviously immoral to torture babies for fun, and of course it’s unethical to lock people in a basement (without really, really good reason). And if we can’t accept these logical implications of subjectivism, we can’t accept subjectivism itself, and are driven to the alternative -- that moral questions do have objective answers that do not depend on an individual’s or a culture’s taste.

Thanks again, and hoping that helps,
Matt

Debi Stafford

7/5/2017 05:11:05 pm

Individual autonomy or the greater good: when is one philosophical viewpoint superior to the other?

Matt link

7/7/2017 02:53:42 pm

Hey Debi,

Thanks so much for your question.

At first I thought you were unintentionally presenting what philosophers call a “false dilemma.” However, you didn’t ask whether individual autonomy or the greater good is superior. You asked *when* one is superior, which is fair.

One concept I cover in Ethics in Nutshell is that of developing an “all things considered” view that balances competing values. I talk about how in any given case the four dominant ethical theories (Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics and Feminist Care Ethics) can recommend conflicting actions, and one way to around this is to go with whichever action enjoys the most net support from the various theories overall. So if you have a really strong Utilitarian reason to do x, and only a weak Kantian reason to do y, you should all things considered do x, provided the other theories are largely silent on the matter.

In cases where respect for individual autonomy and concern for the greater good conflict, you could use the same logic. If an action would only mildly infringe a person’s autonomy (say, by forbidding pocket knives on airplanes), but powerfully promote the greater good (by reassuring thousands of passengers and possibly objectively improving airline safety), then the greater good would win out. In cases where individual autonomy would be greatly infringed (say, a case where doctors are considering killing you and harvesting your organs without your consent), but the greater good only mildly improved (maybe the docs are planning to transplant your organs into terminally ill patients, with no hope that their life will be extended, and therefore wouldn’t do a whole lot to help anyone), individual autonomy would win out.

It's the cases where you have strong reasons from the individual autonomy perspective and strong reasons from the greater good perspective that are tough. In those situations you’re probably going to need to appeal to more than just those two viewpoints. And even in the apparently easy cases, considering the long-term implications of your action, and the precedent that it sets, could override what first seemed to be an obvious choice.

I hope that helps! The All-Things-Considered approach isn’t perfect, but it’s practicable and seems consistent with how we naturally balance competing moral considerations already. Credit my former professor Betsy Postow for developing and introducing me to it.

Matt

Theresa O

7/5/2017 07:51:53 pm

What is the difference (if any) between ethical behavior and moral behavior?

Matt link

7/7/2017 02:54:46 pm

Hi Theresa,

Thanks for your question.

Most philosophical ethicists use morality and ethics interchangeably. There may be some out there that draw a distinction. And philosophers are usually very picky about conceptual clarity and precision. But in this case both terms seem to simply refer to what we ought to do as a matter of doing what’s right.

Sometimes lawyer types will talk about ethics in a legal sense as having to do with compliance with rules or the law. That’s what ethics committees and commissions are usually about – ensuring no one breaks rules, and especially laws.

But as philosophers we’re not beholden to legal precedent or any written set of rules. Why? Rules and laws are man-made, and therefore fallible. And if we’re serious about figuring out and doing what’s right, we can’t be wed to a standard proven to be flawed -- just consider any law that people once endorsed as kosher, but came to realize was not, such as the institution of slavery, or the prohibition on women voting.

Hoping this helps, and thanks again for asking!
Matt

Karen

7/5/2017 08:05:48 pm

Isn't ethics just being good?

Matt link

7/7/2017 02:57:09 pm

Karen,

Thanks so much for your question. Answering it turns largely on how we unpack what you mean by “being good.”

People often use “being good” to refer to doing what’s right or morally correct. When that’s the case, behaving ethically would indeed entail being good. “Good” sometimes refers to welfare or pleasure, as when philosophers distinguish between “the right” and “the good.” But I think it’s fair to say that that’s not the definition people have in mind when they talk about “being good” as you’ve used the phrase here.

However, notice that this doesn’t tell us what “being good” means – it doesn’t provide any guidance, for it’s debatable what good behavior actually is.

Does it mean voting Libertarian? Becoming vegetarian? Signing a living will? Supporting capital punishment? Giving to charity?

So yeah, in a sense, being ethical just means being good. But that’s a very simplistic and uninformative way to think about ethics, and doesn’t give us much to go on. A broader understanding of ethics concerns carefully considering which actions are more or less ethically appropriate and why.

Hope that helps, and thanks again for asking,
Matt

Andrew T

7/5/2017 08:31:27 pm

If I'm a logger and I cut down the oldest tree in the world (which happens to be on my property), is that inherently unethical?
What if that tree contained the only cure for a horrible disease, but I didn't know?

Matt link

7/7/2017 03:02:45 pm

Hey Andrew,

Thanks so much for your question.

I should admit up front that environmental ethics is not my area of specialization. I’ve dabbled in it, but am more competent in bioethics and social and political philosophy. That said, still happy to give this a shot!

Note first that morality comes in degrees. Actions are more or less ethical or unethical, more or less morally permissible or impermissible, more or less morally praiseworthy, objectionable, questionable, etc. So I won’t be offering a binary “yes it was ethical” or “no it was unethical” analysis that suggests that all actions on one side or the other are on par with one another. I suspect you accept as much – just clarifying.

A logger cutting down a tree that he owns doesn’t by itself seem objectionable. It’s just one tree, and he owns it – why not? But the fact that you’re talking about the oldest tree in the world, seems to make this particular tree a good candidate for some sort of public protection – like a historical entity that we have collective interest in preserving, similar to the Old Faithful geyser at Yellowstone. If before Yellowstone was a park the landowner wanted to somehow permanently plug Old Faithful, the rest of us would seem to have some interest in stepping in and preventing as much, provided that the owner is fairly compensated and accommodated.

With that in mind, I think a case can be made that a virtuous logger would appreciate how society at large has some claim on how the oldest tree in the world is treated and abstain from cutting it down whether he enjoyed the legal property right to do so or not. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if he went ahead and cut it down– not the most unethical thing a person could do with his saw. But it would definitely be objectionable and on the unethical side, and if you’re a fan of Virtue Ethics, condemnable as callous, inconsiderate, etc. (Strong proponents of individual property rights might argue otherwise, but I can address those sorts of arguments at another time if you like.)

On the tree’s miracle cure, this would make cutting it down even worse, but the logger would only be additionally blameworthy to the extent that he could have reasonably predicted as much. For example, if I eat an apple with my lunch today, and later discover that the apple contained a cure for cancer that my stomach acids have now ruined, I’m only blameworthy to the extent that I should have known. Were it a normal apple from the grocery store or my father-in-law’s trees, I’d have little reason to feel guilty, and while everyone would rightly be disappointed, no one could rightly say what I did was evil – how was I supposed to know that common apple contained a cure for cancer? On the other hand, were I at Oak Ridge National Laboratory touring their (imaginary) Cancer Research Wing, Magic Fruit Department, and happened to see a glowing apple on a scientist’s desk with “DO NOT TOUCH – CONTAINS CURE FOR CANCER” signs all around it, eating that apple would of course be very much blameworthy. It all turns on what I could have reasonably been expected to know – the same for the logger.

I hope that helps, and cool question.
Matt

Michael Farrell

7/5/2017 10:37:25 pm

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Matt link

7/7/2017 09:52:52 pm

Hi Chuck (just use your real name, Charlie Swift – no need to pretend),

Excellent question.

A scholar named Alan Dershowitz is famous for arguing in favor of “torture warrants” that would allow torture in extreme circumstances such as these, provided obtaining one included rigorous checks and balances and judicial oversight. The thought is that while governments can’t generally be trusted to responsibly employ torture, a system could be set up where torture would only occur when absolutely necessary and justifiable.

However, here you’re not considering a legal path to torture, but a rogue official suggesting it in desperation. What factors should inform such a decision? Three immediately come to mind.
I would argue that torturing would be more permissible to the extent that a) the harm would be great (more potential deaths = stronger case for torturing), b) it’s certain the madman is responsible for the bombs (greater direct responsibility for the danger = stronger case for torturing that particular person), and c) torturing will certainly avert the bombs’ detonation (higher likelihood that torturing will enable officials to prevent tragedy = stronger case for torturing).
If we’re talking about a minor harm (people will be scared, but not killed), and the madman had nothing to do with the bombs (he’s just some random madman), and torturing him wouldn’t do anything to prevent the detonation (madman has no actionable knowledge to divulge), there would hardly be a case at all for torturing. The case is only strong to the extent that those three factors are strong.

So there ya go. The official should at the very least consider those three factors, and to the extent that they obtain, the case for torturing strengthens.

What about an innocent family member? I’d ask similar questions. Will the harm be great? How great? Is the family member completely innocent, or did they help plan the bombing? And will torturing them avert a tragedy?

One additional thing to consider is whether this is a sustainable precedent, and whether it’s consistent with an overall government system that treats individual citizens with adequate respect. There’s something to be said for protecting the inviolability of individuals, no matter how large a harm might be avoided were they abused. And once governments begin to abuse citizens for one reason, they’re emboldened to abuse them for other reasons. For these reasons I would argue against torturing an innocent family member, especially if they weren’t involved in the planting of the bombs at all. That would set too lax a precedent and be much more likely to lead to government abuses than would torturing of an actual bomber, responsible for the event with actionable knowledge that would prevent many deaths.

Last, I should mention that since we’re talking about a “madman,” his responsibility for the bombs could be causal responsibility, but probably not moral responsibility. That is, people are morally responsible for their actions when they competently take them with adequate knowledge of the consequences. For example, if your dog Bruno tracked mud into your new house and ruined an expensive rug because you called for him, you’d hardly say he was evil for doing so. He’s just a dog, therefore not very smart, and not able to make complex decisions or consider the long term impact of his actions. Plus, you’re the one who called for him – he’s just coming as you requested. On the other hand, if I intentionally smeared mud on your carpet, like Rick James grinding mud into Eddie Murphy’s couch, that’s something you could complain about on moral grounds. I’m competent enough to know better. The madman, depending on how mad, is competent and informed to a degree somewhere between Bruno and Rick James. Therefore his moral responsibility and moral blameworthiness is as well, and so to the extent that his mental faculties are corrupt, any actions we take towards him can’t really be done for punitive reasons (because he “chose” to do evil – insane people can’t make free, informed, competent choices), but only for preventative reasons (to avoid the death of innocents if the bombs explode).

Hope that helps, and thanks again for the great question,
Matt

Barney Young

7/6/2017 11:17:27 am

Your UT football team is losing with only a few minutes left in the game. Your WR catches a pass on your own five yard line...but did he really? He knows he actually trapped it. Does he fess up to the official even though it could cost the game? Remember kids all over the country are watching this, Matt.

Matt link

7/7/2017 09:53:43 pm

Hey Barney,

Good to hear from you, and cool question.

I’m of the opinion that sports generally are not important enough to compromise one’s integrity. That is, there are cases where the stakes are so high that deception seems justifiable. But those cases generally don’t happen on an athletic field – it’s just not worth your conscience and the poor example you’d be setting to gain a sports advantage on false pretense.

Recently I was coaching my 9-year-old son’s basketball team in a tight game. We were down by 2 with less than a minute to go, and right in front of my bench one of my players was blatantly fouled while attempting to shoot a long range 3-pointer. It was an ill-advised shot (no way Ethan could have hit it), but from my view it was obviously a shot attempt, and he was obviously fouled (knocked to the ground, in fact). I helped pick him up, and began encouraging him – “That was a shooting foul – you’re going to get three shots!” I couldn’t believe it when the referee, a volunteer and friend named Heath disagreed. Rather than lining up the players for Ethan’s foul shots, the ref asked one of my players to bring the ball in bounds. I protested, “That was a shooting foul – he deserves three shots!” Heath asked, “He was trying to shoot it *from way out here*?” implying that there was no way a sane 9-year-old would try to shoot the ball from that far away. I explained that he indeed was shooting from behind the 3-point line, but that it was actually a spot a little closer than Heath thought. We just had different angles on the play, and our disagreement was reasonable. But one point I tried to make to Heath, who was no doubt attempt to referee the game fairly and to the best of his ability, was that basketball wasn’t important enough for me to try to mislead him – I’m not the sort of coach who would pretend a non-foul was a foul to up our chances of winning.

Ethan didn’t get his shots, and the Zombies didn’t win that game (cool name, huh?). But we won other games, and not because I or any of my players pretended to be fouled when they weren’t.

Of course, that was just a small-town Saturday afternoon game primarily in front of the kids’ parents. For the UT football player, a lot more is at stake. SEC and possibly national championships, scholarships, revenue from merchandising and ticket sales that could do a lot of good. All these things would impact how I might evaluate that scenario differently. But at the end of the day, I’d still rather win only if my team genuinely deserves it. Even though the player’s coach and some fans might not be happy, I’d recommend he admit that he didn’t pull in the catch, and try to make up for it on the next play.

Hope that helps, Barney, and thanks again for the cool question,
Matt

Noah Bopp link

7/6/2017 11:20:02 pm

Hi Matt,

I had the following question published in the "The Ethicist" NYT column a few years ago. Wondering if you can give a better answer:

"Years ago I asked a favorite professor for a graduate-school recommendation. I planned to apply to two schools, so he sent two sealed envelopes with recommendations enclosed. I was accepted by one school before I applied to the other. I still have the second envelope, unopened to this day. My professor died a short while ago. May I open it?"

Matt link

7/7/2017 09:55:10 pm

Hey Noah,

Excellent question, and thanks so much for taking a sec to ask it. The pressure is on since The Ethicist already tackled it! I’m resisting the temptation to go look up their response… Thought about this overnight, and two primary factors came to mind.

When considering whether to open the letter, ask yourself a) whether and to what extent your professor asked or implied that the letter wasn’t for your eyes, and b) the nature and strength of your relationship with your professor.

Since your professor passed (condolences), unless you believe they’re monitoring your behavior from the afterlife, opening and reading the letter wouldn’t cause them any direct harm. However, opening and reading it would taint your ongoing relationship with their memory, which could cause you to lose some self-respect, and even negatively shape your character.

For example, my maternal grandmother has been gone for many years. A warm, caring, selfless woman, I have many fond memories of her hugs, how she used to yell, “Whee!” when my family would pay her a visit (could hear her from her kitchen window as soon as we got out of our car), and how she could never force enough food onto guests (feeding them was how you entertained people in her day). I hope that one day I’ll see her again in heaven. But I freely admit that I can’t know this for sure, that there’s a possibility that when her body died her personality ceased as well, and the same will happen to me. Recognizing that grim possibility (but hoping for the best), I still wouldn’t want to do anything today that would severely disrespect her wishes if I could avoid it. I don’t have any sealed letters of recommendation from her. But if I did, whether I would open and read them would turn largely on whether she implied or said that I shouldn’t do so, and how important I thought this would be to our relationship were she still here.

To get some insight into your case, try reflecting on how much shame you’d naturally feel if your professor were still alive and you opened and read their letter. Knowing you, I suspect it contains nothing but glowing praise! But even so, would you be embarrassed that you didn’t respect their request for privacy if such a request was made? If not, that may say something about the strength of the relationship you had with them (if this was just any old professor, reading their letter wouldn’t be as big a deal). Were they cavalier about the letters? Did they imply a strong expectation that they were only for the grad schools to which you were applying? Or can you infer their expectations based on the norms of the profession or by asking one of their colleagues?

One could say that it really doesn’t matter what your professor expected. It’s not like opening the letter is going to hurt their feelings (again, unless they’re watching, which is a creepy prospect). But doing so would probably damage the ongoing (albeit one-sided) relationship you likely have with their memory. If the letter contained a cure for cancer, I’d say memory be darned, go ahead and open it. But it doesn’t, so my advice is to leave it be.

I’ll have to go see what The Ethicist thought about this. And I actually wonder what you think of it -- an ethicist yourself, you don’t need any outside help! But whatever the case, thanks so much for asking.

Cheers,
Matt

Francine

7/7/2017 10:53:35 pm

Great answer Matt! I love the visual I can get of your grandma and your memory of her. I too have very similar memories of my mom's mom. Curious as to what the response was from the original ethicist!

Matt link

7/20/2017 10:10:27 pm

Hey, I just went and saw what The Ethicist advised. Very different!!

"Your professor has passed beyond the realm where any sublunary behavior can impair his ability to write a dispassionate reference letter. And so, unless you vowed not to, you may open the envelope. In doing this, you'd conform to the common practice of unsealing sensitive records after the deaths of those who might be discomfited by them. And while some living professors may find it inhibiting to know that their recommendations may be read after they've departed this vale of tears and blue-book exams, this risk seems slight (and can be easily curtailed by their including a no-read-ever provision when asked for such notes). The greater danger is that you may not like what you read."

Matt Cleaver link

9/26/2017 05:42:48 pm

Matt, I'm a new community college philosophy instructor (this is my first semester). Do you know of any professors with existing courses using your book & Sandel's Justice with the Canvas Learning Management System?

I am considering adopting your book for the spring, but don't know if I can get an entire Canvas course built from scratch in time.

I love your work. Thanks so much.

Matt link

9/26/2017 06:36:59 pm

Matt, thanks so much for stopping by and for the kind words.

I happen to use Nutshell, Sandel's Justice and some applied ethics articles on abortion for an online ethics class on Canvas. How'd you know?

I've posted a sample syllabus on the "Sample Assignments" page (first link). That plus the sample reflection questions and my video lectures should give you a really good start -- they're at www.YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD on each Nutshell chapter, most Justice chapters, and several abortion articles listed in that draft syllabus.

I'd encourage you to record your own someday. Making them can be fun! But you're of course welcome to use mine if you like -- might also use Sandel's -- there are some nice ones of him in the classroom at Harvard available.

And on the Canvas site itself, if you'll be teaching spring you have PLENTY of time to set it up. Really. If nothing else, you can just stay one chapter ahead and develop new content as the semester unfolds. But do reach out if I can help with anything.

Thanks again,
Matt

P.S. Where are you teaching?

Matt Cleaver link

9/26/2017 10:58:58 pm

Okay, thanks for the tips and encouragement. I'll see what I can do. I'm an adjunct instructor at Trinity Valley Community College in Athens, TX.

Matt link

9/27/2017 06:33:16 am

Cool. If I can help with anything, just let me know -- can be reached at matt <at> mattdeaton.com.

James

4/30/2018 07:27:27 am

Hi Matt!

I'm a first year teacher, and am now a part of the philosophy club, and am in the process of creating an Ethics Olympiad team.

Keeping in mind that I am aware of your site, and have your book, what methods would you recommend for me to maximise my knowledge, and teaching ability of ethics, morality, and philosophy?

Thanks very much for your help!

James.

Matt link

5/1/2018 07:19:30 am

Hi James,

Welcome to the wonderful world of teaching philosophy!

So you have Ethics in a Nutshell, and you're aware of this site (which means you have access to the lecture videos, the sample assignments and syllabi, and the "For Teachers" page above).

Three additional resources I think will help:

1) Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, where you can find concise (although sometimes technical and a little dense) coverage of most every topic within academic philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/

2) A blog I run for ethics bowl coaches, where you can find tips on teaching ethical theory, case analyses, thoughts on how to be an effective coach: http://www.ethicsbowl.org/

3) The National High School Ethics Bowl's "Rules and Resources" page, where you'll find a wealth of resources on how to prepare for and successfully compete in an ethics bowl or Olympiad: http://nhseb.unc.edu/resources/

Check those out and let me know if you're in need of more. Kudos on agreeing to teach pre-college philosophy. And say hi to Matthew Willis for me (the driving force behind Australia's Ethics Olympiad, whom I had the pleasure to meet in person at the first National High School Ethics Bowl, and also via webcam during a video bowl between teams in Tennessee, California and Perth).

Matt

Lacy

10/20/2024 03:29:02 pm

I took your class in Spring of 24. Had I not taken it, I would be lost in my master’s program! I am taking ethics this semester and I learned so much in your class!

Matt link

10/21/2024 12:07:12 pm

Lacy, thanks so much for your kind words! It was a pleasure having you in class – awesome that you’re continuing to study ethics.

Feel free to share the PDF or audiobook with classmates in case it might help them as well :) Cheers, Matt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDY2Hz7mKxM