Philosophy Talk Starters

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/gun-control. The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership with the risk these deadly weapons present to society. What kind of right is the right to bear arms, if it is a right at all? What responsibilities ought to come with gun ownership? And what can philosophical thinking contribute to such delicate policy decisions? John and Ken stand their ground with Hugh LaFollette from the University of South Florida, author of "In Defense of Gun Control."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/election-special. In this re-broadcast of our special episode ahead of the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process. • Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman • Can our democracy survive the amount of money in politics? with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich • How do we justify the two-party system? with Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institution.

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ethics-debt. According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the world play no role in negotiating these loans, in debt crises they usually end up paying the price. So when a country borrows money, who or what is the “economic agent” responsible for taking on the debt? Can traditional economic theory explain why we face debt crises and how we can get out of them? Or do we need a new economic model that dispels some of the myths of the traditional model and offers a more ethical solution to the global debt crisis? John and Ken are held to account with Julie Nelson from the University of Massachusetts Boston, author of "Economics For Humans."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/new-golden-age-television. They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the way we see those stories. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers and others about television's new golden age.

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/your-lying-eyes. The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconscious influences, and they rely on dubious folk psychological theories when assessing evidence. So, how should psychological science be used to improve our justice system? Is there a way to figure out whether a particular eye witness report is reliable? Or for a truly just system, must we forbid all testimony that depends on the capricious faculty of memory? John and Ken take the stand with Daniel Reisberg from Reed College, author of "The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/summer-reading-list-2018. Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger's Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Host emeritus John Perry joins Debra and Ken to think about which classics of political philosophy to dig into this summer, and Josh and Ken talk to a couple of past guests with new books, and take suggestions from the Community of Thinkers.

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/will-innovation-kill-us. Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for many of our current predicaments, which in turn creates a further need to innovate to solve those problems. So is innovation – and our obsession with it – ultimately a force for good or ill? Is our constant need to innovate a function of our biology, or just a product of various cultural forces? Can we ever escape the innovation loop? Should we try before it kills us? John and Ken find new ways to talk to Christian Seelos, co-author of "Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It."

more at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/dionysus-2018. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include: • Most Searing Depiction of Humankind's Propensity to Dehumanize the Other • Most Philosophically Absurdist and Cinematically Transgressive Film • Richest Investigation of the Drivers of History

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/living-through-others. Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of "Death & the Afterlife."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/logic-regret. A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complicated regret is: that an action was irrational or wrong doesn’t necessarily imply that we should regret it. When, then, should we regret? For that matter, why should we regret anything at all? Doesn’t the feeling of regret just add more pain to circumstances that are already unfortunate? How can it possibly be rational to affirm actions that one knows were wrong? John and Ken don't regret talking to Jay Wallace from UC Berkeley, author of "The View From Here: On Affirmation, Attachment, and the Limits of Regret."