Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part II - Eichmann in Jerusalem)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part II of IV)’, where we’ll be discussing the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/thinks

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part I - The Life of Hannah Arendt)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part I of IV)’, where we’ll be discussing the life of Hannah Arendt.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/thinks

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing Hauskeller’s argument against transhumanist approaches to animals.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/destroys its nature

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part I - How to Become a Post-Dog)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Michael Hauskeller.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/destroys its nature

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 99, Animal Rights (Part IV - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 99 (Part IV of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing practical solutions to the problems of animal suffering.

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/enters our moral sphere

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 99, Animal Rights (Part III - Mere Instruments)

Welcome to ‘Episode 99 (Part III of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing animal experimentation and farming.

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/enters our moral sphere

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 99, Animal Rights (Part II - Fellow Creatures)

Welcome to ‘Episode 99 (Part II of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing the moral philosophies of Christine Korsgaard and Peter Singer.

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/enters our moral sphere

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 99, Animal Rights (Part I - History)

Welcome to ‘Episode 99 (Part I of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing the place of non-human animals within the history of philosophy.

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/enters our moral sphere

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 97, ‘Lessons from Lockdown’ with Vittorio Bufacchi (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 97 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be wrapping up our discussion on the philosophy of COVID-19 with Vittorio Bufacchi.

Over a year has passed since COVID-19 forced the world to shut its doors. Millions of lives have been lost, and millions more have undergone radical change. At times, many of us have wished to see loved ones, friends, and colleagues; we’ve longed to play sports, attend shows, and travel the world. We’ve hoped that everything can return to normal. But should they?

What if this pandemic has highlighted issues in our societies that have been ignored or marginalised for too long? What if normal made the pandemic worse than it needed to be, and what if normal is part of the problem? According to philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi, this is precisely the case: everything must change.

Vittorio Bufacchi is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at University College Cork, specialising in questions concerning social injustice, human rights, and political violence. As we shall see, Bufacchi’s work demonstrates that philosophy can and should engage with the most pressing social issues of our time. Philosophy, says Bufacchi, can navigate us towards better ideas and a better world; and it is during times of crisis that we need it most.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/sanitises its hands

Contents

Part I. The Pandemic

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 97, ‘Lessons from Lockdown’ with Vittorio Bufacchi (Part I - The Pandemic)

Welcome to ‘Episode 97 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the philosophy of COVID-19 with Vittorio Bufacchi.

Over a year has passed since COVID-19 forced the world to shut its doors. Millions of lives have been lost, and millions more have undergone radical change. At times, many of us have wished to see loved ones, friends, and colleagues; we’ve longed to play sports, attend shows, and travel the world. We’ve hoped that everything can return to normal. But should they?

What if this pandemic has highlighted issues in our societies that have been ignored or marginalised for too long? What if normal made the pandemic worse than it needed to be, and what if normal is part of the problem? According to philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi, this is precisely the case: everything must change.

Vittorio Bufacchi is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at University College Cork, specialising in questions concerning social injustice, human rights, and political violence. As we shall see, Bufacchi’s work demonstrates that philosophy can and should engage with the most pressing social issues of our time. Philosophy, says Bufacchi, can navigate us towards better ideas and a better world; and it is during times of crisis that we need it most.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/sanitises its hands

Contents

Part I. The Pandemic

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 96, Pride and Anger (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 96 (Part III of III)’, in which we’ll be concluding our discussion of pride and anger.

If I told you I was a proud and angry person, what would you think of me? Would you conjure up the image of an entitled, arrogant aggressor? The devil’s turn from God was born of pride after all. What if you thought of a person with standards, a person with integrity who wants the best for themselves and others? Would that be a fair assumption?

What I’m asking is: are pride and anger virtues or vices? In the right light, emotions seem to lead to a better life… or perhaps they just create that impression until we realise we’ve become something we’d rather not admit. These two emotions govern our self-worth, they shape our relationships with others, and they determine how we bring about a better world. In short, how we think about these two emotions matters and it’s imperative that we understand their nature.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/reflects on its character

Contents

Part I. Pride

Part II. Anger

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 96, Pride and Anger (Part II - Anger)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 96 (Part II of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the virtue (or vice) of anger.

If I told you I was a proud and angry person, what would you think of me? Would you conjure up the image of an entitled, arrogant aggressor? The devil’s turn from God was born of pride after all. What if you thought of a person with standards, a person with integrity who wants the best for themselves and others? Would that be a fair assumption?

What I’m asking is: are pride and anger virtues or vices? In the right light, emotions seem to lead to a better life… or perhaps they just create that impression until we realise we’ve become something we’d rather not admit. These two emotions govern our self-worth, they shape our relationships with others, and they determine how we bring about a better world. In short, how we think about these two emotions matters and it’s imperative that we understand their nature.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/reflects on its character

Contents

Part I. Pride

Part II. Anger

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 96, Pride and Anger (Part I - Pride)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 96 (Part I of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the virtue (or vice) of pride.

If I told you I was a proud and angry person, what would you think of me? Would you conjure up the image of an entitled, arrogant aggressor? The devil’s turn from God was born of pride after all. What if you thought of a person with standards, a person with integrity who wants the best for themselves and others? Would that be a fair assumption?

What I’m asking is: are pride and anger virtues or vices? In the right light, emotions seem to lead to a better life… or perhaps they just create that impression until we realise we’ve become something we’d rather not admit. These two emotions govern our self-worth, they shape our relationships with others, and they determine how we bring about a better world. In short, how we think about these two emotions matters and it’s imperative that we understand their nature.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/reflects on its character

Contents

Part I. Pride

Part II. Anger

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 94, ‘The New Age of Empire’ with Kehinde Andrews (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 94 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion of black radicalism with Kehinde Andrews.

Western civilisation is the most successful in history. Built on the shoulders of science, industry and democracy, enlightenment philosophy gave birth to the scientific revolution that has increased the quality of life for millions. The Western political drive for democracy has given rise to the largest political representation of people in history, and supranational bodies like the United Nations ensure that inequality and injustice are a thing of the past. Shortly, a Green New Deal and universal basic income will solve the remaining of society’s problems.

For Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, nothing could be further from the truth. In his eyes, Western civilisation is built not on Enlightenment ideals, but on the shoulders of genocide, slavery and colonialism. Since 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the West has systematically murdered, exploited, and hoarded the wealth of black and brown nations.

Unfortunately, this is not a thing of the past. Today we live not only with the legacy of Empire, but firmly within it! The age of Empire is alive and well, and its colonial, racist, white supremacist logic shapes every part of our lives today. Although the prospects look bleak, a revolution is possible. As Andrews says, Malcolm X was right: ‘the ballot or the bullet, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody’.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/calls for revolution

Contents

Part I. The Logic of Empire

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 94, ‘The New Age of Empire’ with Kehinde Andrews (Part I - The Logic of Empire)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 94 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Kehinde Andrews about his new book, The New Age of Empire.

Western civilisation is the most successful in history. Built on the shoulders of science, industry and democracy, enlightenment philosophy gave birth to the scientific revolution that has increased the quality of life for millions. The Western political drive for democracy has given rise to the largest political representation of people in history, and supranational bodies like the United Nations ensure that inequality and injustice are a thing of the past. Shortly, a Green New Deal and universal basic income will solve the remaining of society’s problems.

For Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, nothing could be further from the truth. In his eyes, Western civilisation is built not on Enlightenment ideals, but on the shoulders of genocide, slavery and colonialism. Since 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the West has systematically murdered, exploited, and hoarded the wealth of black and brown nations.

Unfortunately, this is not a thing of the past. Today we live not only with the legacy of Empire, but firmly within it! The age of Empire is alive and well, and its colonial, racist, white supremacist logic shapes every part of our lives today. Although the prospects look bleak, a revolution is possible. As Andrews says, Malcolm X was right: ‘the ballot or the bullet, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody’.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/calls for revolution

Contents

Part I. The Logic of Empire

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 84, The Patricia Churchland Interview (Part II - The Conscience)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 84 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the origins of our moral intuitions with Patricia Churchland.

Resting on our shoulders is the most complex object in the known universe: 86 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others. From Plato to Descartes, to the modern-day, philosophers have largely been ignorant of the workings of the brain, despite many questions in philosophy seeming to be intimately linked with its nature. Questions like: What are the origins of our moral intuitions, our conscience? What is the nature of decision-making? And how does the brain produce consciousness? 

Following the recent upsurge of interest and research into neuroscience (reaching full steam in the 1970s), Patricia Churchland describes the emergence of neurophilosophy as ‘inevitable’, coining the term in her now classic book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain in 1986. Alongside Neurophilosophy, Patricia Churchland is best known for her books Touching a Nerve, Braintrust, and most recently Conscience, which (together with hundreds of other publications, interviews, public talks, and awards) have led her to be considered one of, if not the, world’s leading neurophilosopher. 

Currently Professor Emerita in Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, Patricia Churchland has knocked down the wall between science and philosophy, inspiring a new wave of thinking about life’s most challenging questions.

For some, however, the wall was there for a reason: questions of philosophy should not be confused with questions of science. After all, what can neuroscience tell us about the origin of consciousness or the nature of morality? Our topics for this episode...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/hornswoggles you into a humdinger

Contents

Part I. The Hornswoggle Problem

Part II. The Conscience

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part III of III)', where we’ll be discussing the psychology of moral luck and engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part II - Thomas Nagel)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part II of III)', where we’ll be discussing Thomas Nagel’s Moral Luck.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part I - Bernard Williams)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part I of III)', where we’ll be discussing Bernard Williams’ Moral Luck.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 75, ‘Christian Animal Ethics’ with David Clough (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 75 (Part II of II)', where we’ll be continuing our discussion with David Clough on Christian animal ethics.

With the dominance of humankind has come a new age, an age of global warming, ecological collapse, and sixth mass extinction. In 2018, it was reported that of all the Earth’s mammals, 96% are humans and livestock. Our overpopulation, overconsumption, and exploitation have caused a climate catastrophe, but we are not our only victims. Each year, over 70 billion land creatures and 7 trillion sea animals are killed for food, and despite growth in public awareness, the overwhelming majority of these animals continue to endure unimaginable suffering throughout their lives. 

The religions of ancient India - Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism - are no strangers to practicing ahimsa and vegetarianism. Their Abrahamic cousins have a very different past. For the advocate of animal rights, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a long and dark history in their treatment of our fellow creatures. A history, many theologians, want to condemn to the history books.

One such theologian is David Clough, professor of theological ethics at the University of Chester. Through his systematic theology On Animals, Professor Clough has inspired a new wave of scholarship on Christian attitudes towards our fellow creatures, and the Earth as a whole, calling Christians to unshackle themselves from Aristotelian ways of thinking and embrace Darwinian theories of the natural world.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/lives on bread alone

Contents

Part I. The Rise of the Vegangelicals.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.