当然，有些人比其他人更聪明、更坚强、更善良、更有创造力。但是有人是卓越的人类吗?肯断言说有些人更好是有道理的，但约翰不同意。Ken进一步阐述了他的观点:不仅有些人更好，而且这些“精英”人类应该遵循不同的道德标准。当然，史蒂夫·乔布斯可能是一个混蛋，但他的混蛋可能是他取得伟大成就的必要条件。Is this all just “elitist rubbish,” as John says, or is Ken onto something?

肯和约翰欢迎多伦多大学哲学教授托马斯·赫尔卡来帮助解决这些问题。他首先指出，当我们问某些人是否比其他人“更好”时，我们可能指的是一些不同的事情。如果这个问题的意思是"是否有些人过着比其他人更理想的生活? "胡尔卡和肯恩站在一起:为实现伟大目标而努力的人(在这个意义上)比那些不努力的人更好。但是，这是否意味着“更好”的人应该被区别对待，或者给予他们更多的资源来发展他们的能力?Hurka声称确实如此。我们应该为社会上的杰出人士提供充分发挥其才能所需的资源。约翰和肯都担心这可能会产生一些不可接受的不平等后果。

Should we cut great individuals some slack, morally speaking? Hurka replies that we should, but only if the immoral acts were somehow necessary for great achievements. Ken returns to an earlier objection: doesn’t Hurka’s argument imply that we ought to give all our resources to the most talented people, rather than those who really need them? Of course we should care about people’s needs, Hurka says, but as a community we are justified in putting resources into developing the talents of exceptional people. In fact, we already do that through government support for the arts. Hurka emphasizes, however, that he does not endorse the Nietzschean view according to which the sole purpose of society is to produce great individuals.

约翰和肯感谢Hurka的精彩对话。Although he finds Hurka’s views interesting, Ken still can’t help but worry that Hurka’s views can’t be justifiedtothose who are the victims of immoral behavior of great individuals or unequal distribution of resources.

• Roving Philosophical Reporter(Seek to 5:32): Caitlin Esch discusses some moral failings of great men and women with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
  
• 60 Second Philosopher(Seek to 49:18): Ian Shoales gives a speedy introduction to John Rawls’s theory of justice, which came up late in the conversation. He wonders where does the ideal of equality ends.