John begins by asking Ken where morality can possibly originate, and Ken describes one of the most common theories of morality: what God says is right is right, and what God says is wrong is wrong. John relates this to one of Plato's early dialogues, and wonders whether what is right is right because God makes it right, or because God recognizes that there is something about it that makes it right? Ken suggests that social conventions and human psychology could be an alternative origin for morality, but John points out that the same paradox applies: does society cause certain actions to be right or wrong, or does it just recognize the right-ness or wrong-ness of actions? Of course, sometimes societies are wrong, they justify slavery and allow the mistreatment of women, and this creates a whole new set of problems for John and Ken, who ultimately conclude that moral relativism has serious flaws, and these injustices are truly wrong. But this insistence on absolute moral truths brings them back to the original question!

In order to help them along, Ken introduces Alex Miller, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, and author of An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, and excellent introductory text on the subject. John begins by asking Alex what it says about morality that people are constantly arguing about its nature and origins. Alex thinks this might show that there is not really a fact of the matter concerning morality, just like an opinion about the tastiest ice cream is subjective, so too ideas about morality might not be based on any fact of the matter. On the other hand, Alex also suggests all the disagreement might indicate that morality is really a very complex issue that requires the consideration of many different disciplines and factors to resolve--maybe there is a fact of the matter but it just can't be found easily from the armchair! John, Ken, and Alex all agree that the second possibility is more likely, and the great variety of moral disagreements are indicative of the very difficult nature of the subject. John points out that there are some moral questions which are easy to agree on, are these possibly universal, or are they just easy? Alex thinks moral agreement can be even more confusing than disagreement, because the same moral principle can be justified in many ways. Is one justification more apt or correct than another? Does the justification matter, or is only the conclusion important?

尽管亚历克斯宣称他没有自己的道德理论，肯问他是否在内心深处认为存在客观的道德真理，以及他是否必须为他可能争辩的这些真理辩护。亚历克斯将他的立场与伟大的哲学家伯特兰·罗素联系起来，罗素无法为客观的道德真理进行辩论，但他一从非哲学的角度思考，就意识到现实世界中有明显的道德对错。亚历克斯认为最终道德真理是与他们支持的行为和这些行为的后果相关的。约翰将亚历克斯的观点与休谟和康德进行了比较，并想知道:对行为的感受和行为对世界的影响，哪个更重要?肯试着描述道德和伦理之间的区别，然后试着用赞同和不赞同的方式来表达道德，道德中真的有比社会认同和分歧更重要的东西吗?这就把讨论引向了道德判断和道德行为之间的联系——我们都知道，有些人会做出很多道德判断，但却不按照这些判断行事，或者不按照这些判断生活。

John, Ken, and Alex continue to take calls and emails concerning the status of moral truths, how to recognize a moral truth if you stumble upon one, and whether or not the origins of moral truths are justified as long as they ultimately lead to positive actions.

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 3:43): Zoe Corneli travels to downtown San Francisco to ask the average person what they think morality is, and where it comes from.
  
• Sixty Second Philosopher(Seek to 48:56): Ian Shoales discusses the connection between morality, Flaubert, propriety, and the bourgeoisie at lightning speed.