Claim OwnershipPractical Ethics Bites
Subscribed: 373Played: 1,232
Subscribe
© Oxford University
Description
Practical Ethics Bites is a series of audio podcasts on practical ethics targeted specifically at pupils studying philosophy in UK schools. It is produced by the team behind the popular podcast Philosophy Bites, David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton. Philosophy Bites has had over 21 million downloads. David Edmonds is a Senior Research Associate at Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and all the interviewees are academics linked to the Uehiro Centre. The series aims to be a free educational resource for teachers. Each interview is around 20 minutes long.
9 Episodes
Reverse
3Brian Earp discusses the ethics of sexual orientation.
Professor Janet Radcliffe Richards argues that homosexuality is natural, and that what is natural can be neither good nor bad.
Does a human embryo have moral status? Tom Douglas explores the ethical issues surrounding genetic research on developing embryos.
Is an ethical war a paradoxical notion? If violence is almost always unacceptable, how can we justify acts of war?
23 10
Rebecca Roache discusses the conflicting rights and interests of both foetus and mother.
Is sex-selection harmful or injust? Julian Savulescu outlines four methods used in sex-selection and explores the ethical issues surrounding each.
Professor Neil Levy explores the link between free will and responsibility. What makes us blameworthy for our actions?
In this episode, Professor Roger Crisp introduces the strand of ethical theory known as 'virtue ethics'.
Dr Dominic Wilkinson, Director of Medical Ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, explores the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia and asks whether it should be made legal.
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
err, would muchos appreciate more bites.
Very informative. Thank you!
Pardon me, but didn't Kant weasel out of the axe murderer analogy by stating that 'misleading truths' are okay. Honestly, I was on the fence about that too. x'D I'm always impressed by how well spoken most guests are. :o
Tldl; Two arguments: a. People have a right to privacy and sexual orientation falls within that ambit, it does not infringe on the rights of others. Social, moral (moral wrt individual choices on morality which don't affect others substantially) norms can't be imposed on citizens by the state as it infringes on personal liberty, freedom of expression. (How did we arrive at these rights is more complicated. we'd have to consider theories on formation of State and the source of its power). b. sexual orientation is not based on choice and hence unfair to discriminate based on it. (no culpability). - Hypothetically if gene editing/any other tech allows people to choose their sexual orientation this argument would become weak. hence we must rely on argument (a).
The practical ethics channel does not fail. :) I also like the YouTube channel. Thanks for the work!