Academic Edgelords

In this episode, we explore a very provocative argument in contemporary animal ethics: the moral defense of violent direct action to protect animals. The pseudonymous philosopher Ivar Hardman challenges both mainstream liberal ethics and the cautious pacifism of figures like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. His essay, “In Defense of Direct Action”, argues that it is prima facie morally permissible, in some cases even required, for individuals to use coercion, including violence and property destruction, to prevent the serious and wrongful harm of animals. Drawing on common sense morality, Hardman builds a case for treating militant animal rights activists not as moral outliers, but as people following ordinary moral principles to their logical conclusion. We explore the paper’s key claims, how it situates itself against animal ethics orthodoxy, and what it implies for the legitimacy of groups like the Animal Liberation Front. If you want to offset your meat consumption (as mentioned by Ethan in the episode), check out FarmKind Check out Stephan Kershnar’s controversial publication record (we mentioned at the end of the episode). https://philpeople.org/profiles/stephen-kershnar The post EP27: Should We Use Violence To Protect Animals? (On Ivar Hardman’s “In Defence of Direct Action”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we delve into Emily Tilton and Briana Toole’s forthcoming chapter, “Standpoint Epistemology and the Epistemology of Deference,” featured in the Blackwell Companion to Epistemology. We are joined by two guests: Michelle Charette, who recently completed her PhD in Science and Technology Studies, and John Atytalla, who holds a PhD in Philosophy.​ Tilton and Toole critically examine the prevailing trend of epistemic deference – where individuals are encouraged to accept the judgments of marginalized groups as their own. While acknowledging the importance of recognizing marginalized perspectives, they argue that habitual deference can inadvertently hinder the socially dominant from cultivating essential epistemic skills, such as empathy and critical inquiry. They advocate for an epistemic framework centered on inclusion and active engagement rather than passive deference. We had a mixture of audio setups in this episode, so there are a couple of audio anomalies. Feature Image from Frits Ahlefeldt The post EP26: Should We Defer To Marginalized Perspectives? (On Tilton and Toole’s Epistemology of Deference) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this engaging discussion, Matt McManus, author of *The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism*, explores how liberalism and socialism might coexist. He dives into the criticisms from both the Marxist left and libertarians regarding the feasibility of this fusion. Topics include the stark disparities in economic rewards, the ethical implications of redistributive policies, and the importance of self-governance. McManus also touches on societal structures, personal relationships, and how justice can reshape our understanding of equality and power dynamics.

In this episode, we read Kieran Healy’s provocatively titled essay, “F**k Nuance,” where he argues that an overemphasis on nuance can hinder the development of effective sociological theory. He argues that piling on distinctions can make theories more convoluted without making them more useful. Instead of sharpening insight, excessive nuance can turn sociology into an endless exercise in hair-splitting—good for showing off, bad for explaining the world. We are joined by Science and Technology Studies PhD candidate Michelle Charette to debate the merits of Healy’s arguments. The post EP24: Do We Need Nuanced Academic Theories (On Kieran Healy’s Article “F**k Nuance”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.