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 A note, this is our final episode recorded before our hiatus (over 6 months ago) in case we make any outdated references.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.

This week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar’s The Human Predicament. Benatar’s answer is as edgy as it gets. No, there’s no meaning to life, and no matter how much we try to soothe ourselves, this is a terrible state of affairs. Though Benatar is a pessimist, he admits that human lives can have social or personal meaning, but on a cosmic scale we are totally insignificant. On this episode, we debate whether Benatar’s idea of “cosmic meaning” even makes sense. We also consider the way our own personal upbringings might influence the way we take up this question. The post EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In ethnography there has been a long-standing tradition to prioritize the interests of research participants through a scholar-informant solidarity. This week we ask, how far should this scholar-informant solidarity go in cases where the research participants are dangerous or otherwise unsavoury? In this episode, we interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about this question and his own work that entails a “deep hanging out” with his research subjects. As Teitelbaum describes them, “They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends”. This week we read “Collaborating with the Radical Right: Scholar-Informant Solidarity and the Case for an Immoral Anthropology“. In it, Teitelbaum defends his use of scholar-informant solidarity with the far right. Additionally, the article includes a series of responses to Teitelbaum’s argument from a collection of leading scholars in the field. Matt and Victor also interviewed Teitelbaum on PlasticPills about his book on Steve Bannon and Traditionalism called War for Eternity. You can find that interview here. The post EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there’s nothing wrong with that. He likens post-truth to a kind of epistemic democratization that we should embrace. We read the third chapter from Steve Fuller’s book, Post Truth: Knowledge as Power Game. We also read three short essays that build on this debate. You can find those here, here, and here. In the episode, we ask: In what way is the reactionary right similar and different to the science studies left? What would epistemic democratization really mean, and is that a good thing? How far are we willing to go with ideas that stress the social construction of scientific knowledge? Do we counter the anti-science right by defending scientists, or by offering a broader political vision? And more generally, what should the left do when the right takes leftish ideas? The post EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Exploring the provocative views of a libertarian edgelord on contentious topics like adult-child sex and slavery. Analyzing the distinctions between formal and fair equality of opportunity. Discussing the complexities of creating inequality while optimizing the distribution of benefits. Delving into the concept of equality of opportunity and its connection to human well-being. Reflecting on the noble lie concept and its relevance to equality in society.

Academia is often stereotyped as a radical left-wing institution. This is especially true among conservatives who even see universities as “Marxist indoctrination camps.” So much so, that many conservatives are turning their backs on the academy completely. On this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the extent to which it is even true that ideological diversity is a problem on university campuses, and if it is, what the best ways to solve it might be. For this episode, we read The Value of Ideological Diversity Among University Faculty by Keith E. Whittington. Matt also read Ideological Diversity by Neil Gross and Christopher Robertson. The post EP9: Are There Enough Conservatives in Academia? (On Whittington’s Case for Ideological Diversity) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

This podcast explores Jason Brennan's controversial argument for replacing democracy with rule by the knowledgeable. They discuss the flaws of democracy, the typology of the electorate, and the potential benefits of Brennan's system. The concept of epistocracy and its critiques are explored, as well as the argumentative moves regarding authority and anti-authority. They also discuss safeguards in democratic structures, individual rights, moral equality, and offer divergent views on democracy's potential for improvement.