Claim OwnershipSurprising Ethics
Subscribed: 6Played: 29
Subscribe
© 2026 Surprising Ethics
Description
The most interesting ideas from ethics and political theory. Where every episode contains a surprise.
Surprising Ethics is an accessible philosophy podcast exploring the striking ways in which philosophers are trying to upend received wisdom about politics and how to live ethically. In the battle between the status quo and surprising alternatives, which will win out?
By Dr William Gildea, McGill University and Centre for Research in Ethics. Artwork by Ana Otelea.
11 Episodes
Reverse
Research shows it’s love – not money or social status – that can soothe the suffering many men are feeling today. But is the manosphere taking this balm away from men? It encourages men to see women as stereotypes and as commodities. This could render them incapable of romantic love with a woman, according to many philosophers of love. And if we want to turn our backs on Andrew Tate and co, is there actually a healthier alternative form of masculinity to which men and boys can turn? I asked t...
Many countries are considering lowering the voting age. But right now it’s 18 nearly everywhere. Why? Why not 14, 12, or even 6? Don’t teenagers and kids have interests in having a voice? Adults may on average have more experience than teenagers, but then again some 15-year-olds may be politically wiser than some 50-year-olds. Check out the surprising case for a radical reduction in the voting age with a political philosopher who has a new take on the question. We also explore broader questio...
How do we craft a diet in the child’s best interests? That’s the question Rachel Fredericks and Jeremy Fischer set out to answer, leaving behind the usual arguments about climate and animals. These two ethicists combined philosophy, psychology and nutrition science and came up with an intriguing answer. Turns out, what makes a diet good for a kid is about so much more than just food. It’s about moral development, identity, ideology, and learning how to choose for yourself. We put this ideal d...
Are new year’s resolutions a golden opportunity for self-improvement, or do they reinforce a damaging ideology of work and “self-improvement”? And how can we best decide on a resolution? This episode explores two philosophical challenges to the way we set new year’s resolutions. First, Bertrand Russell claims we should free ourselves from pro-work ideology, and embrace idleness and leisure. If we step back from hyperproductivity, we might want to reject new year's resolutions. Second, Kieran ...
Envy is seen as a deadly sin. But not by Professor Sara Protasi, who argues that envy is often good – even *virtuous*. Envy drives progress, she claims. Feeling envious is natural. And without it, we might never leave the couch. But how can such a destructive emotion be morally good? And even if envy makes us more productive in the short term, does it corrode our happiness in the long run? Our conversation covers self-improvement and productivity; self-esteem, radical self-acceptance, a...
We normally think: how can we stop AI harming humans? We may also have to ask: how can we stop humans harming AI? After all, there’s a surprisingly strong case for the rights of future AIs. If future (or present!) AIs have rights, why? And what actual specific rights could some future ChatGPT assistant even have? Will AIs wake up, and become conscious or sentient? Or is digital consciousness just not ever possible? Given the risks, should we stop AI development in its tracks to avoid creating...
We think of ourselves as rational agents, able to choose well for ourselves. Professor Sarah Conly calls this into question. She argues that we’re reliably bad at making certain decisions. So much so that governments should step in, and make many bad choices like smoking illegal – for our own good. But where does she draw the line? Aren't some decisions sacrosanct? What is the true value of freedom? Is paternalism insulting, or could it be the answer to societal crises? Tune in to hear Conly’...
Some philosophers now argue that monogamy is morally wrong. Imagine your friend came and told you that you can’t have any other friendships. You’d be bemused. But what’s the difference between this and exclusivity in love relationships? Is jealousy a good reason to be monogamous? Or is ethical non-monogamy – such as open relationships or polyamory – the only ethical approach? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: sur...
Society assumes that animals do not have moral rights. But what could this be based on? How could we argue that humans are the only animals to have rights? And where do we draw the line? These questions about animal ethics also raise the question: why does each of us human beings, ultimately, matter as an individual? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_p...
Hedonists claim that pleasure is all that makes for a good life. Are they right that relationships, achievements, and meaningfulness have no intrinsic value? We explore the surprising arguments on both sides of this debate about wellbeing, including a version of Nozick’s infamous experience machine thought experiment. Would you plug into an experience simulator, forever cutting yourself off from the real world to have the best time of your life and all the 'happiness' you could want? ...
Let's get excited for those surprises! Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States