On this episode, we return for a sequel to EP19’s topic: the potential immorality of monogamy. On that episode, we discussed Harry Chalmers’ paper “Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?” This time, we interview the man himself to see where our discussion might have gone wrong the first time around. We also discuss “Monogamy Unredeemed”, Harry’s defence of his original article, responding to a response paper from Kyle York. Subscribe to Harry’s substack here The post EP23: Is Monogamy Immoral? (EP19 follow-up Feat. Harry Chalmers) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Could random citizens lead us better than elected officials? A bold idea emerges: lottocracy, which swaps elections for sortition. The discussion navigates how this system could tackle corruption and inequality while fostering genuine representation. Critics question if everyday citizens can truly govern effectively. Exploring historical precedents and modern experiments, the hosts evaluate whether lottocracy could reshape democracy and address the shortcomings of our current political landscape.

In this conversation, political theorist and artist Mike Watson shares insights from his book, 'Hungry Ghosts in the Machine.' He examines the influence of digital culture on community and identity, questioning whether our modern malaise stems from capitalism or human nature. Watson discusses the God Helmet's implications on spirituality, critiques the materialist left, and advocates for deeper engagement in philosophical discourse. He also explores the shift from meaningful online interactions to clout chasing, urging a return to community building.

In this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to manipulate encourage citizens to make better choices. We are also joined by our co-founder and former co-host Gordon Katic. We discuss Gordon’s excellent new Cited podcast series on the “Rationality Wars” that explores the way libertarian paternalism has benefitted big corporations and might be based on questionable evidence. Our discussion led to a broad debate about the nature of human agency and freedom. For a write-up on the role behavioural economics played to benefit big corporations, see Gordon’s recent article and Jacobin. For criticisms of libertarian paternalism we also read Gerd Gigerenzer’s “On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism“. Production note: Gordon was traveling when we recorded this and did not have his mic. Therefore, his audio quality was not always the best. Apologies for this! The post EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take: monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners. Chalmers sets himself a high bar: not only does he need to show that non-monogamy is morally preferable, but that monogamy is in principle morally problematic. We discuss Chalmers’ main responses to defences of monogamy, including specialness, sexual health, raising kids, practicality, and jealousy. We also read and briefly touch on a response to Chalmers’ piece by Kyle York. The post EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

On this episode, we dive deep into Brian Leiter’s “The Case Against Free Speech.” Leiter questions the sanctity of free speech, suggesting that not all speech deserves equal protection if it causes societal harm. Is it really a blanket right, or are we just covering up society’s harms? Tune in as we tear into the freedoms you thought you had and discuss whether Leiter’s ideas are a blueprint for a just society or just an excuse to gag annoying blowhards. See this Vox article for more Production Note: Victor’s mic broke right before recording, so his audio sounds worse than usual. The post EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas, suggesting that utilitarians, who support sacrificing one for the greater good, could be prioritized as potential victims. This week we are joined by Ben Burgis. He is a philosophy instructor and host of the YouTube show Give Them An Argument. Burgis is also the author of Canceling Comedians While the World Burns and Give Them an Argument: Logic for the Left. The post EP17: Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First? (Smilansky’s Designer Ethics) Ft. Ben Burgis appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

On this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “In defense of the ivory tower: Why philosophers should stay out of politics“. In it, van der Vossen argues that academic philosophers have a duty to avoid engaging in politics. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic integrity. We do not find many of these arguments convincing. Listen to find out why! A note, this is our final episode recorded before our hiatus (over 6 months ago) in case we make any outdated references. The post EP16: Should Philosophers Stay Out Of Politics? (On van der Vossen’s Defence of The Ivory Tower) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Hide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In 2023, the very edgy Journal of Controversial Ideas published “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible“. In it, Fira Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex. We recorded this episode more than six months ago and we’re excited (and nervous) for people to finally hear it. This one got contentious! We debate whether there are good reasons to think zoophilia is immoral. We also argue about whether it is even worth asking the question of the article. Consider this a trigger warning! The post EP15: Is Zoophilia Morally Permissible? (On Bensto’s Defence of Zoophilia) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

We’re back! For our relaunch episode, we chose an article that helps us reflect on this podcast’s mission: “Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk” by Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman. The paper argues that there is a difficult dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressive duties not to offend), or they must be granted some level of exemption from these duties in their professional work. In this episode, we debate whether this dilemma is plausible, and whether our podcast risks violating certain moral duties if we decide to tackle especially edgy topics. The post EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.