Podcasts > Making Sense with Sam Harris > #446 — How to Do the Most Good

#446 — How to Do the Most Good

By Waking Up with Sam Harris

In this episode of Making Sense, Sam Harris and Michael Plant explore major ethical frameworks, focusing on the differences between utilitarianism, consequentialism, and deontological ethics. Their discussion examines how these frameworks approach the concept of maximizing good outcomes, with Plant and Harris analyzing whether adherence to moral principles naturally leads to positive consequences.

The conversation delves into the role of happiness and well-being in ethical decision-making. Plant and Harris examine how to define and measure well-being, distinguish between happiness and positive experiences, and consider practical applications of happiness research. They discuss real-world examples, including how mental suffering in affluent societies compares to poverty in developing nations, and explore how this research can inform policy decisions.

Listen to the original

#446 — How to Do the Most Good

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Dec 1, 2025 episode of the Making Sense with Sam Harris

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

#446 — How to Do the Most Good

1-Page Summary

Metaethical Frameworks: Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, and Deontological Ethics

Michael Plant and Harris explore the distinctions between major ethical frameworks. Plant explains that while utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness, consequentialism more broadly aims to promote the greatest good. Harris points out that consequentialism faces criticism for not accounting for all consequences. The discussion then turns to deontological ethics, which Plant describes as including moral constraints and prerogatives beyond just maximizing good outcomes.

Harris suggests that deontological positions might ultimately align with consequentialism, as adherence to moral principles often leads to good consequences. The two discuss how this remains an open debate in ethics, particularly when considering extreme scenarios like sacrificing one life to save many.

The Centrality of Happiness/Well-Being in Ethics

Plant emphasizes that while happiness and well-being aren't the only considerations in ethical frameworks, they play a crucial role. The discussion explores whether aspects like truth, beauty, and love hold intrinsic value alongside happiness. Plant argues that completely dismissing happiness would be a significant oversight, as it would make human suffering morally irrelevant.

Defining and Measuring Happiness/Well-Being

Plant defines well-being as what makes someone's life go well for them, while happiness refers specifically to positive emotional experiences. Harris explains that negative experiences, like exercise-related discomfort, can contribute to overall well-being despite temporary unpleasantness. Harris also challenges the notion that negative experiences are necessary for recognizing happiness, suggesting that our understanding of well-being could become increasingly refined through comparing good experiences with better ones.

Applying Happiness Research

In discussing practical applications, Plant suggests that mental suffering from homelessness in affluent societies might exceed the suffering experienced in developing world poverty, due to the stark contrast with surrounding wealth. Harris and Plant explore how happiness research can inform policy decisions, acknowledging the complex tradeoffs involved in maximizing well-being through both individual and policy choices.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • Utilitarianism's focus on happiness can be criticized for potentially justifying actions that are widely considered unethical if they result in a net increase in happiness.
  • Consequentialism's broad aim to promote the greatest good can be critiqued for its potential to justify harmful means to an end, as it may not adequately consider the rights and dignity of individuals.
  • Critics of deontological ethics argue that it can lead to rigid moral rules that don't allow for necessary flexibility in moral decision-making.
  • The suggestion that deontological positions might align with consequentialism can be countered by arguing that deontological ethics fundamentally differs in its approach by prioritizing duties over outcomes.
  • The centrality of happiness and well-being in ethics can be challenged by ethical theories that prioritize other values, such as virtue ethics, which focuses on character and moral virtues.
  • The intrinsic value of aspects like truth, beauty, and love can be debated, with some arguing that these values are subjective and culturally relative.
  • The definition of well-being as what makes someone's life go well for them can be criticized for being too subjective and potentially excluding objective measures of well-being.
  • The idea that negative experiences are not necessary for recognizing happiness can be countered by arguing that contrast experiences are essential for a full appreciation of positive states.
  • The comparison of mental suffering from homelessness in affluent societies to suffering from poverty in developing countries can be critiqued for oversimplifying complex socio-economic issues and potentially minimizing the experiences of those in poverty.
  • The application of happiness research to policy decisions can be criticized for potentially leading to paternalistic policies that may infringe on individual freedoms or fail to respect cultural differences.

Actionables

  • You can create a personal "ethical ledger" to track decisions that impact your happiness and well-being. Start by jotting down daily decisions and their outcomes, noting how they align with your values and contribute to your overall happiness. For example, choosing to volunteer might not immediately increase happiness but can enhance long-term well-being through a sense of community contribution.
  • Develop a "consequence map" for complex decisions to visualize the broader impact beyond immediate happiness. When faced with a significant choice, like changing jobs, draw a flowchart that includes potential outcomes for yourself and others, considering both short-term and long-term effects on well-being. This can help you make more informed decisions that align with a broader definition of the greatest good.
  • Engage in a "well-being swap" challenge with friends or family where you exchange activities that contribute to happiness and well-being for a week. For instance, if you enjoy reading for relaxation and a friend finds cooking therapeutic, swap these activities to explore different facets of well-being and gain new perspectives on what can enhance life quality.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#446 — How to Do the Most Good

Metaethical Frameworks: Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, and Deontological Ethics

In examining ethical theories, Michael Plant and Harris explore the nuances between utilitarianism, consequentialism, and deontological ethics.

Utilitarianism Maximizes Happiness; Consequentialism Does the Most Good

Michael Plant introduces utilitarianism as the ethical view focused on maximizing overall happiness. In contrast, consequentialism dictates that one's actions should promote the greatest good, without strictly defining 'good' as happiness. Within this framework, Harris points out the criticism that consequentialism doesn't account for all consequences, while Plant adds that hedonism, which values pleasure or happiness as the ultimate benefit to one's life, is a consequentialist belief.

Deontological Theories Impose Constraints and Prerogatives Beyond Maximizing Good Outcomes, Like Prohibitions On Killing Innocents

Plant contrasts consequentialism with deontological ethics, which sometimes align with maximizing good outcomes but include constraints, such as prohibitions against killing, even if doing so would save more lives. Deontological theories also recognize moral prerogatives, where some good actions may be recommended but not obligatory. Harris echoes the sentiment, noting how deontological rules often restrict actions beyond the goal of maximizing good outcomes.

Debate On Whether Deontological Theories Reduce To Consequentialism Due to Tradeoffs and Implicit Value Calculations

High Stakes Challenge Deontological Rules, Per Consequentialists; Deontologists Assert Irreducible Moral Norms

Harris contends that deontological positions may unintentionally align with consequentialism, where adherence to principles such as Kant's categorical imperative leads to overall good consequences. Plant acknowledges that non-consequentialist theories also involve trade-offs and calculations, suggesting that utilitarianism, for instance, might be critiqued for taking the idea of maximizing too far.

The two delve into a debate surrounding the potential for deontological theories to essentially boil down to consequentialism when considering normative principles versus representing distinct, irreducible moral norms. For example, deontologists may unequivocally prohibit killing one person to save five, but consequentiali ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Metaethical Frameworks: Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, and Deontological Ethics

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Utilitarianism is a specific type of consequentialism that defines the "good" as happiness or pleasure. Consequentialism is a broader category that judges actions solely by their outcomes, but the "good" can be defined in various ways, not just happiness. Thus, all utilitarians are consequentialists, but not all consequentialists are utilitarians. This means consequentialism can include other values like justice or knowledge as the ultimate good.
  • Hedonism in ethics is the view that pleasure or happiness is the highest good and proper aim of human life. It holds that actions are morally right if they increase overall pleasure and reduce pain. Ethical hedonism often underpins utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize happiness for the greatest number. Critics argue it can overlook other values like justice or rights.
  • Moral prerogatives in deontological ethics refer to permissions or allowances to perform certain actions that are good but not required. They differ from moral obligations, which are duties one must follow. Prerogatives recognize that some positive actions are optional, giving individuals moral freedom. This concept helps explain why not all good actions are mandatory in deontological frameworks.
  • Non-consequentialist theories set moral rules that sometimes conflict, requiring choices between them. These choices involve weighing the importance of different principles, which is the "trade-off." Implicit value calculations occur when deciding which rule to prioritize without explicitly quantifying values. This shows that even non-consequentialist ethics involve practical judgment about competing moral considerations.
  • Kant's categorical imperative is a foundational principle in deontological ethics that requires actions to be universally applicable as moral laws. It demands that one act only according to maxims that could be consistently willed as a universal rule for everyone. This principle emphasizes duty and moral consistency over consequences. It serves to identify actions that respect the inherent dignity and autonomy of all individuals.
  • The debate centers on whether deontological ethics, which focus on fixed moral rules, ultimately rely on evaluating outcomes like consequentialism. Critics argue that when deontologists weigh trade-offs or exceptions, they implicitly perform outcome-based calculations. Defenders maintain that some moral norms are absolute and cannot be overridden by consequences. This dispute questions if deontology is truly distinct or just a form of consequentialism with stricter rules.
  • The example of killing one person to save five is a classic ethical dilemma known as the "trolley problem." It tests whether it is morally acceptable to harm one individual if it results in saving multiple others. Utilitarians often argue it is justified because it maximizes overall good. Deontologists oppose it, holding that certain actions, like killing innocents, are inherently wrong regardless of outcomes.
  • Involuntary organ harvesting refers to forcibly taking organs from individuals without their consent, often to save others. It is considered an ethical extreme because it violates personal rights and bodily autonomy. Consequentialists might theoretically justify it if it maximizes overall good, but this raises serious moral and societal concerns. Deontological ethics reject it outright due to inherent moral prohibitions against harming innocent people.
  • Nozic ...

Counterarguments

  • Utilitarianism's focus on happiness can be criticized for potentially neglecting individual rights and justice; it may justify harmful actions if they increase overall happiness.
  • Consequentialism's broad definition of the 'greatest good' can lead to ambiguity and difficulty in practical decision-making.
  • Critics of consequentialism argue that it can justify morally questionable actions, like lying or breaking promises, if these actions lead to better outcomes.
  • Hedonism's emphasis on pleasure as the ultimate good is challenged by those who argue that some pleasures may be base or unworthy, and that a good life includes more than just pleasure.
  • Deontological ethics can be criticized for being too rigid and not allowing for exceptions in extreme situations where breaking a rule could lead to better outcomes.
  • Deontological theories may be seen as impractical or overly demanding, as they require adherence to moral rules regardless of the consequences.
  • The argument that deontological positions may align with consequentialism can be countered by pointing out that deontologists often reject the idea that the ends justify the means.
  • The debate on whether deo ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#446 — How to Do the Most Good

The Centrality of Happiness/Well-Being in Ethics and Decision-Making

Michael Plant emphasizes the critical role happiness and well-being play in ethical frameworks and decision-making, suggesting that while they may not be the only considerations, they hold considerable weight in discussions of moral goodness.

Happiness and Well-Being Are Essential in any Ethical Framework, Though Not the Sole Focus

Happiness and Avoidance of Suffering Are Key to Moral Goodness

Plant discusses well-being as what makes life go well, with happiness being a central element. In a debate surrounding the 'experience machine', the idea emerges that subjective well-being might not be the only measure for ethics. This debate underlines the notion that ethical decision-making involves more than just happiness or the avoidance of suffering, pointing to the central but not exclusive role of well-being in ethics.

Debate On Whether Happiness or Truth, Beauty, Love, etc., Hold Intrinsic Value

Non-hedonists See Dismissing Happiness As a Major Oversight

The discussion continues, considering whether aspects such as truth, beauty, love, and achievement also constitute parts of we ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The Centrality of Happiness/Well-Being in Ethics and Decision-Making

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The "experience machine" is a thought experiment by philosopher Robert Nozick. It asks if people would choose to plug into a machine that gives them only pleasurable experiences, indistinguishable from reality. The experiment challenges the idea that happiness or pleasure is the sole intrinsic value. It suggests that people value reality and authenticity beyond just feeling happy.
  • Subjective well-being refers to how people experience and evaluate their own lives emotionally and cognitively. It includes feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and the presence of positive emotions versus negative ones. This concept is personal and varies from person to person, based on their own perceptions. It contrasts with objective measures of well-being, which rely on external criteria like income or health.
  • Hedonists believe that pleasure or happiness is the only intrinsic good and the ultimate goal of life. Non-hedonists argue that other values like truth, beauty, or love also have intrinsic worth beyond just pleasure. This distinction affects how they evaluate what makes life or actions morally good. Understanding this helps clarify why some ethical theories prioritize happiness while others include multiple values.
  • Intrinsic value means something is valuable in itself, not just for what it leads to. Truth, beauty, love, and achievement are often argued to have intrinsic value because they are seen as inherently good or worthwhile. This contrasts with things valued only for their consequences, like happiness as a means to pleasure. Philosophers debate whether these qualities hold value independently or only through their effects on well-being.
  • Happiness refers to the subjective experience of pleasure or contentment, while well-being encompasses a broader state of flourishing, including physical, mental, and social factors. Moral goodness involves actions or states that are considered ethically right or beneficial. Happiness and well-being contribute to moral goodness by promoting positive outcomes and reducing s ...

Counterarguments

  • Happiness and well-being, while important, may not always be the most appropriate primary focus in ethical frameworks, as they can sometimes conflict with other values such as justice, rights, or duties.
  • Some ethical theories, like deontology, argue that moral goodness is not solely determined by outcomes related to happiness or suffering but by adherence to moral duties and principles.
  • The concept of well-being is complex and subjective, and what constitutes happiness for one person may not align with another's, raising challenges for universal application in ethics.
  • Ethical decision-making that prioritizes happiness could potentially justify actions that are harmful to minorities if those actions increase the overall happiness of the majority.
  • The 'experience machine' argument suggests that there are intrinsic values beyond subjective well-being, such as authenticity and personal achievement, which are not captured by happiness alone.
  • Some philosophers argue that the intrinsic value of truth, beauty, and love may sometimes require actions that do not directly contribute to happiness or well-being.
  • Critics of utilitarianism, which often emphasizes happiness and well-being, argue that it can overlook the importance of individual rights and distributive justice.
  • The focus on happiness ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#446 — How to Do the Most Good

Defining and Measuring Happiness/Well-Being

The distinction between happiness and well-being is subtle but significant, as experts in the field elaborate on the intrinsic qualities and external influences that shape these concepts.

Happiness Is Positive Valence; Well-Being Is Overall Life Quality

Happiness and well-being, although interconnected, are distinct concepts. Well-being, as defined by Michael Plant, is what makes someone's life go well for them, encompassing the overall quality of life. On the other hand, happiness refers to the experience of positive valence, where a person feels good overall and is characterized by intrinsic pleasure in their experiences.

Subjectivity and Context in Defining Concepts

The causes of happiness remain an empirical question, where ongoing research continues to investigate what leads to happiness and how different factors may compare in fostering happiness over time. The context of individual experiences adds a layer of complexity to the definition of these terms.

Suffering or Difficulty, Such As Exercise, May Enhance Well-Being Despite Negative Sensations

Within the frontier of human experience, negative sensations such as pain experienced during exercise can paradoxically contribute to an individual's well-being. Sam Harris explains that strenuous activities, while uncomfortable, are often valued for their positive outcomes and their role in enhancing life's overall quality.

Frontier of Human Experience and Potential For Refinements In Happiness Complicate Defining Their Essence

Michael Plant suggests that life with only positive experiences might not maximize total happiness over time because negative experiences are also necessary. For example, experiencing the discomforts of camping can lead to a greater appreciation for the comforts of civilization.

Meanwhile, Harris proposes that it's not necessarily the case that bad experiences ar ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Defining and Measuring Happiness/Well-Being

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Positive valence refers to the immediate feeling of pleasure or positive emotion in a moment. Overall life quality, or well-being, includes long-term factors like health, relationships, and purpose, beyond just momentary feelings. Positive valence is about how good you feel right now, while life quality is about how good your life is as a whole. Thus, someone can feel happy in the moment but still have a low overall life quality, or vice versa.
  • Intrinsic pleasure refers to the enjoyment or satisfaction that comes from the experience itself, not from any external reward or outcome. It is a natural, internal feeling of positivity that arises directly during an activity or moment. For example, feeling joy while listening to music is intrinsic pleasure because the pleasure is inherent in the experience. This contrasts with pleasure derived from external factors, like praise or money.
  • Researching the causes of happiness empirically means using scientific methods like experiments, surveys, and data analysis to observe and measure what influences happiness. Researchers collect real-world evidence rather than relying on opinions or theories alone. This approach helps identify patterns and test hypotheses about factors that increase or decrease happiness. It also allows for comparisons across different populations and contexts to understand how happiness works universally and individually.
  • The "frontier of human experience" refers to the limits of what people have encountered or understood emotionally and psychologically. It includes new, challenging, or intense experiences that push beyond ordinary life. Exploring this frontier can reveal deeper insights into happiness and well-being. It suggests that as humans encounter novel experiences, their concepts of happiness may evolve.
  • Negative sensations like pain during exercise can enhance well-being because they signal effort and progress, leading to a sense of achievement. This process triggers the release of endorphins, natural chemicals that improve mood and reduce pain perception. Overcoming physical challenges builds resilience and self-confidence, contributing to overall life satisfaction. Additionally, such experiences can deepen appreciation for comfort and health, enriching one's quality of life.
  • Negative experiences can provide contrast that makes positive experiences feel more meaningful and rewarding. They also build resilience and personal growth, which contribute to a deeper sense of fulfillment. Without challenges or discomfort, life might feel monotonous, reducing overall satisfaction. This idea is linked to psychological theories like the "hedonic treadmill," where constant pleasure loses impact without variation.
  • Refining well-being by comparing good experiences with better ones means continuously raising the standard of what counts as a positive experience. Instead of needing bad experiences to highlight happiness, people can find greater satisfaction by recognizing improvements over previous pleasures. This process suggests well-being is dynamic and can evolve as new, more fulfilling experiences become possible. It challenges the idea that contrast with negative experiences is necessary for appreciating happiness.
  • The debate quest ...

Counterarguments

  • The idea that well-being encompasses overall life quality while happiness is about positive valence could be challenged by the argument that happiness is a component of well-being, not separate from it.
  • The assertion that negative experiences are necessary for maximizing happiness over time could be countered by the perspective that it is not the negative experiences themselves that are necessary, but rather the ability to overcome challenges and grow from them.
  • The notion that strenuous activities are valued for their positive outcomes might be met with the argument that not all individuals value negative sensations for their positive outcomes, and some may prioritize comfort and ease.
  • The suggestion that life with only positive experiences may not maximize happiness could be countered by the argument that it is subjective and that some individuals may indeed find a life with predominantly positive experiences to be maximally fulfilling.
  • The idea that we can refine our understanding of well-being by comparing good experiences with better ones could be challenged by the argument that this approach may lead to a never-ending pursuit of 'better' that overlooks the value of contentment with one's current state.
  • The debate over whether a perfect simulated life is preferable to a real life with difficult truths could be met with the argument that authenticity and the ability to experience a full range of emotions, including those stemming from diff ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
#446 — How to Do the Most Good

Applying Happiness Research To Practical Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Sam Harris and Michael Plant delve into the implications of happiness research on decision-making and policy-making, in light of global wealth disparities and living standards.

Global Wealth and Living Standard Disparities Raise Questions About Prioritizing Suffering

Harris and Plant discuss the notion that homelessness and isolation in affluent societies, such as that observed in San Francisco, can cause intense mental suffering due to the stark contrast between the lives of the homeless and those of surrounding affluent communities. Plant suggests this mental anguish may result in greater suffering when compared to the poverty experienced in the developing world. He believes that the mental suffering of homelessness in an affluent society could indeed be worse than that experienced in poorer parts of the world, which is grounded in his observations and seems extremely plausible.

Happiness Research Reveals Tradeoffs and Consequences In Maximizing Well-Being Through Individual and Policy Decisions

The conversation touches on how happiness and suffering are crucial factors influencing quality of life and, consequently, they impact decisions affecting well-being. Harris brings up the "experience machine" concept, which challenges the values of reality versus percei ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Applying Happiness Research To Practical Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The assertion that mental suffering from homelessness in affluent societies can be worse than poverty in developing countries may overlook the multifaceted nature of poverty, which includes not only mental suffering but also physical health issues, lack of access to basic needs, and systemic challenges that might not be as prevalent in affluent societies.
  • While the "experience machine" concept is useful for illustrating tradeoffs between reality and perceived happiness, one could argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of human experiences and the value individuals place on authenticity and personal growth, which are not captured by mere perceptions of happiness.
  • The idea that happiness research should guide policy-making assumes that happiness is a universally agreed-upon goal or that it can be measured accurately and objectively, which may not account for cultural differences or subjective interpretations of well-being.
  • The focus on happiness as a metric for policy-making might inadvertently marginalize other important aspects of life, such as justice, autonomy, and moral rights, which could be equally or more important in certain co ...

Actionables

  • You can reflect on your personal definition of happiness by journaling about moments you felt truly content and comparing them to times you've chased superficial success. This exercise helps you understand your happiness drivers and can inform future decisions that align with genuine well-being rather than societal expectations.
  • Start a happiness budget by allocating a portion of your monthly expenses to activities scientifically linked to increasing well-being, such as social outings, learning new skills, or donating to causes you care about. This approach integrates happiness research into your financial planning, encouraging you to spend on experiences and actions that contribute to long-term happiness.
  • Engage in a "reality check" practice wher ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA