Handling Questions on Theory

[Pat Bouvry]

Ref: podcast 3547 question 3 28Dec2016.

 

I usually don't leave feedbacks but I feel Stefan's show would benefit from considering the following observation and suggestion.

 

I'm very much interested in questions pertaining to the theories of morality and ethics, for the simple reason that this is where most moral arguments originate. I'm happy to pay 50$ per month to Stefan to gather a better understanding of moral philosophy.

 

However, I have noticed that a majority of times when a caller questions moral theories, the call is much shorter than most others (e.g. 30 min instead of 60 min) and there's a high likelihood that the call will end up in a catastrophic situation where Stefan will feel insulted, lose patience and even end the call before the question can be answered clearly to all the listeners. This happened again in the recent podcast 3547 on 28Dec2016 Q3.

 

If I'm going to spend a significant amount of my time highly interested in callers' questions focussed on the fundamentals of moral theories, and even pay reasonable money for it, I would very much appreciate those questions being dealt in a patient, non inflammatory or "you've insulted me" manner, as is already done with most people calling for their personal problems.

 

There's obviously nothing wrong with terminating a call when someone is being rude and clearly disrespectful (e.g. 3543 Q3), but in this particular case (3547 Q3), I was invested in caller's question and genuinely interested in hearing Stefan's explanation. Unfortunately, I felt again disappointed and left hanging out without a clear rebuttal to clarify why the caller was incorrect or even why Stefan felt insulted. To act this way in your own free show is fine, but to accept money in exchange of delivering a 'service' should have implications of a minimum level of professionalism in interviews with callers (not only with known personalities), which I felt fell short in this particular case.

 

In general, I feel Stefan' show is great. I would however enjoy hearing more information to explain basic theories on morality and more patience in treating those subjects. Yes, I have read UPB, but there are still a number of areas where ethics can be better explained (e.g. abortion, ethics with animals, etc) and Stefan's great abilities can help clarify those concepts.

 

I hope this feedback will be taken constructively to improve the great work everyone at FDR is already doing.

 

Best regards. Pat

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I don't know if I've listened to the same shows you have, but I've listened to some that fit the bill you've described.

 

I've heard Stefan say this on numerous occasions, usually directly to the caller questioning his moral reasoning, that if the caller is going to call and discuss these topics, he should really prepare before doing so. In several of the calls I've listened to, the caller can't answer basic points about what Stef has said about the topic in the past. When Stef has the patience to repeat these basics to the caller, like something from UPB or a previous podcast, it's very common that the caller either refuses or is unable to accept the basics and goes on like a broken record.

 

I'm usually surprised that Stef has enough patience to go for 30 minutes. In fact, in the past I have often avoided call-in show podcasts simply because of the patience Stef gives callers who seem to refuse to get whatever he's talking about.

 

Have you thought of calling in and asking your own questions?

[thecurrentyear]

Do a search for the topics in which you are interested in the podcast history. There are so many, and Stef treats them so thoroughly, that you will have plenty to keep you busy for a while... Please do your research prior to offering "constructive criticism."

[Boss]

What argument do you feel Stefan hasnt rebuttal?

[adamNJ]

 but in this particular case (3547 Q3), I was invested in caller's question and genuinely interested in hearing Stefan's explanation. Unfortunately, I felt again disappointed and left hanging out without a clear rebuttal to clarify why the caller was incorrect or even why Stefan felt insulted. 

The caller did not find a flaw in Stefan's argument and the conversation ended.  What question pertaining to the theory of morality and ethics do you have?