Claim Ownership

Author:

Subscribed: 0Played: 0
Share

Description

 Episodes
Reverse
REPLAY - in light of the queen's death and power transfering to Charles III, whilst we offer our condolensces it's more pertinent than ever to ask during these lavish ceremonies and high air-time events...should we even be maintaining our royal families? Here's a replay of our old episode, previously titled 'should we abolish the monarchy?'Previous description:In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of abolishing the monarchic institutions that are present in the UK and several other EU countries (but really focusing on the UK as a specific example). The key arguments discussed and considered are: 1 - democracy, 2 - elitism, 3 - corruption/abuse of power, 4 - history & tradition, 5 - entertainment, 6 - soft power, 7 - the practical nuisance of disbanding the royals. Ant is writing this and I maintain that it's a grossly inequitable institution that doesn't much contribute cash beyond what would be achieved regardless of their maintenance (not that money would even be a good justification anyway)...but hey, listen to the whole pod and form your own opinion! As always, reviews really help us, please follow and review on your podcast platform of choice and contact us on your social media of choice. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The second in a two-parter where we discuss whether luxury goods are immoral. In a true return to form, this is a specific argument we have literally had over the office lunch table, originating from Ant's throwaway statement that he "doesn't get the point of jewellery" and "thinks it's ridiculously wasteful". In order to dissect whether luxuries are immoral, we first break down what exactly counts as a luxury, and secondly explore what exactly would make them immoral.In this episode, it's all about discussing the opportunity cost of money spent on things that aren't strictly needed. Particularly, this comes through the lens of our last episode where we discuss luxuries of 2 sorts, expensive but perhaps 'good value' and offering some valid sort of self-esteem/self actualisation benefit within Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or another sort where it's frivolous and perhaps the user derives self esteem, but we may question whether that's a legitimate sort of esteem. We then particularly frame this morally considering the ideas of Peter Singer (i.e. all money you spend could be used to save lives, how should that affect your decision making?) vs Susan Wolf (i.e. not everything is about optimizing moral outcomes, it would create a sad and dreary life where we could not pursue anything of what makes the human experience so rich).Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The first in a two-parter where we discuss whether luxury goods are immoral. In a true return to form, this is a specific argument we have literally had over the office lunch table, originating from Ant's throwaway statement that he "doesn't get the point of jewellery" and "thinks it's ridiculously wasteful". In order to dissect whether luxuries are immoral, we first break down what exactly counts as a luxury, and secondly explore what exactly would make them immoral.In this episode, it's all about discussing what luxuries even are. We begin with some general and economic definitions, and then get into what makes something feel like a luxury, beyond some sterile definitions. It all comes down to what is and isn't necessary, and we come up with 2 sub-sets of luxuries to consider: things that are expensive and not necessary, but at least conceivably 'good value', and things that are expensive and not necessary, and are purely expensive as a means of conspicuous spending. We discuss Maslow's heirarchy of needs, distinguishing the difference between 'needs' for literal survival, and 'needs' for greater fulfillment, and several interesting examples of ostentatious spending.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The third in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'When is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.In this episode, we talk through some of the pros and cons, including the classic 'slippery slope' argument as a negative and the limits of our autonomy, specifically bodily autonomy, in the pros column. We draw on some of the philosophical concepts from last episode as well as religious context and actual context. Ultimately, Jake and Ant - in classic Jake and Ant fashion - end up largely agreeing that respect for autonomy wins out in contexts where one can't be considered impaired in their judgement, in a way that can't be altered (physical pain may be an unavoidable impairment on your normal judgement, when near death).Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The second in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'When is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.In this episode, we talk through some typical moral/philosophical frameworks and what they may have to say about choosing, or being designated, to die. We romp through the typically out-there (by modern standards) ancient greek perspectives - you better be a 'good citizen', or else you're in trouble... - up to typical Kantian/utilitarian perspectives and also looking into "What we owe each other", which is much more than a pop framework that gets a mention in 'The Good Place'.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The first in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'when is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.We'll begin the series by clarifying the terms (what's the difference between assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the active/passive forms of either) and a discussion of the current legal state of affairs across a range of countries - including how hard it is to do any of this in the UK and a little price check of a one-way trip to Switzerland.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Third in our series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of morality and public policy; generally of the form 'should X be made legal?'. We'll be exploring both the ethical arguments and some of the high level data around key policy decisions surrounding commonly banned substances and activities. A core introductory theme (and one that's consistently touched on through the series) is when and how a governing power should behave independent of morality, i.e. with a greater focus and interest in outcomes and evidence, and when the banning or legalizing of substances are perhaps more important as value statements than as policy approaches who's outcomes we should study. Ultimately, this a spectrum and we will all have different views on this, even from issue to issue.Today we consider the legality of gambling. Dissimilar to previous episodes, this is something that's is largely legal (though sports gambling is only recently permitted in the US). This means we can assess some of the impacts through studies and also that we consider the realistic efficacy of oversight bodies. In this case, the similar to the sex work, the moral imperative is protection of victims, but the victims are the purchasers rather than the sellers, and the particular difference on top of this is the awkward layering of the capitalist incentive to take advantage of those who gamble most - and are most addicted.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Second in our series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of morality and public policy; generally of the form 'should X be made legal?'. We'll be exploring both the ethical arguments and some of the high level data around key policy decisions surrounding commonly banned substances and activities. A core introductory theme (and one that's consistently touched on through the series) is when and how a governing power should behave independent of morality, i.e. with a greater focus and interest in outcomes and evidence, and when the banning or legalizing of substances are perhaps more important as value statements than as policy approaches who's outcomes we should study. Ultimately, this a spectrum and we will all have different views on this, even from issue to issue.Today we consider the legality of sex work/prostitution (i.e. the exchange of cash for sexual services). There are several global locations where there are legal avenues to prostitution, but largely it's illegal. This provides ample opportunity to study the impact of differences and changes and their impact on the health of sex workers. Importantly, unlike drugs, which are very multi-faceted, our main concern looking at sex work is the welfare of the providers of the service. We also touch on the moral significance of sex that delineates it from other physical pleasures - afterall, it's totally acceptable to pay for a non-sexual massage - and whether some goods should simply not have a market for their provision.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, we begin a series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of morality and public policy; generally of the form 'should X be made legal?'. We'll be exploring both the ethical arguments and some of the high level data around key policy decisions surrounding commonly banned substances and activities. A core introductory theme (and one that's consistently touched on through the series) is when and how a governing power should behave independent of morality, i.e. with a greater focus and interest in outcomes and evidence, and when the banning or legalizing of substances are perhaps more important as value statements than as policy approaches who's outcomes we should study. Ultimately, this a spectrum and we will all have different views on this, even from issue to issue.We begin by assessing the legality of recreational drugs (recreational vs performance enhancing or other use cases). Recreational drugs are widely available legally, such as alcohol, but a large number of substances are actually prohibited (particularly many discovered/popularized within the last century or so). Why? If I can drink myself to death and our society can widely celebrate drinking culture, is it so bad if some people dabble in the use of other substances? Maybe some of these have a particular ability to cloud our judgement and limit our freedom. All of this, and more, discussed this week.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, we finish our series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of 'God' and morality. You'll note the use of quotation marks, this is because we explore the moral implications of theism and organized religion in a way that is not limited to faith-based belief. This means both looking purely at the incentives around belief rather than basing belief on faith, but also weighing up the pros and cons of organized religion and their impact on society. Did it help to instill moral norms and unity, or more act as a basis for persecution, subjugation and undue docility.In this episode, we consider the source of moral authority when it comes to religion. Ultimately, if people say things like 'this is the correct way to interpret scripture', there must be some method they're leaning on to pick between alternative interpretations. If this is the case, is God's word not, in itself, the source of moral authority? Is God good at selecting what's good, or does he define it be choosing it? We talk through these problems and consider whether, in the context of morality, an appeal to authority is ever a compelling form of argument.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, we continue our series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of 'God' and morality. You'll note the use of quotation marks, this is because we explore the moral implications of theism and organized religion in a way that is not limited to faith-based belief. This means both looking purely at the incentives around belief rather than basing belief on faith, but also weighing up the pros and cons of organized religion and their impact on society. Did it help to instill moral norms and unity, or more act as a basis for persecution, subjugation and undue docility.In this episode, we weigh up some of the goods and bads that have been committed in the name of religion and whether belief even matters to the moral teachings of religions. We begin with looking at Alain de Botton and work our way through to the '4 horsemen' of atheism, with a bunch of thought experiments along the way.Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, we begin a series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of 'God' and morality. You'll note the use of quotation marks, this is because we explore the moral implications of theism and organized religion in a way that is not limited to faith-based belief. This means both looking purely at the incentives around belief rather than basing belief on faith, but also weighing up the pros and cons of organized religion and their impact on society. Did it help to instill moral norms and unity, or more act as a basis for persecution, subjugation and undue docility. We begin by assessing some of the classic arguments for either believing or not believing in god, drawing inspiration all the way from the Ancient Greece to Dostoevsky. Next we'll consider whether religion (irrespective of god's existence) has been a net good for humanity, and finally what the moral basis for god's morality could be (an appeal to authority, the definition of what is moral or something else entirely).Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are all the rage - at time of posting. Should we all be rushing to buy digital images of gorillas wearing sunglasses? Or are there better ways of supporting struggling artists?In this episode, Jake and Ant look at whether NFTs represent a bright future for helping artists monetize their work. They begin by discussing how NFTs work, what web3 is and why people are so excited about where this technology could lead us. Bill Gates famously warned that one of the early design flaws of the internet was that it would be hard for creators to monetise their content - and we've certainly seen the risks of this with the rise of platforms like Spotify - so does web3 hold the answers? Along the way, they look at what art is, what it means to own art and whether NFTs will actually fulfil all their promises. Is the current hype around NFT just the beginning, or is it a bubble? Or, worse, are NFTs a kind of ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme?Support the show:Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside. Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This is a crossover with the Good in Theory podcast. We discuss with Clif what liberal democracy is, the arguments in its favour, and some big critiques. What is the purpose of government? How much of what we look for in good governance is shaped by our liberal democratic contexts (and particularly, the Cold War)? Episode includes Plato, Nazis and of course the Lizard People. Enjoy!--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hunting endangered animals for sport. Everyone knows it’s bad. But is it really?In this episode, Jake and Ant talk about trophy hunting and whether a moral society can permit it. They begin with an overview of how trophy hunting actually works in the nations that allow it and how it has gone wrong in the past, followed by outlining the effects it has on the environment, conservation, and local communities, which curiously, are generally positive.This leads them into a discussion of the morality of conservation in general, whether we have an obligation to maintain species, and whether conservation of the species is sufficient to justify animals suffering.They also discuss the differences in the opinions on trophy hunting in countries that have it and countries that don’t, questioning if it’s fair for the west to enforce their norms on far away places when they have no skin in the game.Want to create your own podcast?Zencastr is an all in one podcast creation studio that you can access right from your browser, no installations needed. Just get on the site and send a link to your guests and you can get started, recording studio quality audio, and now video too.Automatic post-production makes finalising your podcast easy, all guests have their own audio channels to make editing a breeze, and all files are stored on the cloud for easy access and peace of mind.Click this link to get started with 30% off your subscription for your first 3 months.Support the show:If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside. Alternatively, leave us a review! We read every one and they’re a great way to help others find the show… which in turn, means we’ll make more episodes. Win-win.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Is the Santa myth just harmless fun, or should we be honest to our kids about Saint Nick?In this very festive episode, Jake and Ant discuss the morality of lying to children about Santa Claus. They start with a brief history of the character's origins, including Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas and even Odin. Then they go over the origins of the tradition of teaching children of Santa's literal existence and the reasons for doing it.After that, they discuss the potential benefits of the fiction, as well as the potential harms, before bringing up several philosophical frameworks and what they have to say about lying to children in addition to lying in general. They end the discussion by talking about the lessons that the Santa myth may inadvertently teach children, as well as alternatives to lying to children that don't deprive kids of the fun of the Santa story.Want to create your own podcast?Zencastr is an all in one podcast creation studio that you can access right from your browser, no installations needed. Just get on the site and send a link to your guests and you can get started, recording studio quality audio, and now video too.Automatic post-production makes finalising your podcast easy, all guests have their own audio channels to make editing a breeze, and all files are stored on the cloud for easy access and peace of mind.Click this link to get started with 30% off your subscription for your first 3 months.Support the show:If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside. Alternatively, leave us a review! We read every one and they’re a great way to help others find the show… which in turn, means we’ll make more episodes. Win-win.Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Does buying gifts from Amazon make you a bad person?This week, Jake and Ant tackle the very festive topic of the morality of buying gifts from Amazon. They start by going over the pros and cons of buying from Amazon, both the intended and unintended results. As well as going over both Amazon’s philanthropic and less-than-philanthropic endeavours.They discuss different philosophical frameworks and what they have to say about the morality of buying from the online marketplace behemoth.Then they go over the roles individuals have to play versus the one that government does, as well as discussing the morality of even making this an individual issue in the first place. Is even talking about what we, as individuals, can do distracting from a greater issue?Want to create your own podcast?Zencastr is an all in one podcast creation studio that you can access right from your browser, no installations needed. Just get on the site and send a link to your guests and you can get started, recording studio quality audio, and now video too.Automatic post-production makes finalising your podcast easy, all guests have their own audio channels to make editing a breeze, and all files are stored on the cloud for easy access and peace of mind.Click this link to get started with 30% off your subscription for your first 3 months.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Can you break a promise if it was an unreasonable one to make?In this episode, Jake and Ant go in depth, discussing several philosophical frameworks and what they have to say about promises. Using realistic (and some less realistic) examples of promises, they discuss what various philosophers would have to say about them, as well as giving their own two cents. They discuss duty, trust, and how our actions support or erode institutions we all depend on.Should you keep a promise to someone who’ll never know if you do? Should you make a promise you know you can’t keep to make someone feel better? What even counts as a promise?Want to create your own podcast?Zencastr is an all in one podcast creation studio that you can access right from your browser, no installations needed. Just get on the site and send a link to your guests and you can get started, recording studio quality audio, and now video too.Automatic post-production makes finalising your podcast easy, all guests have their own audio channels to make editing a breeze, and all files are stored on the cloud for easy access and peace of mind.Click this link to get started with 30% off your subscription for your first 3 months.As always, reviews really help us, please follow and review on your podcast platform of choice and contact us on your social media of choice.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Is it justifiable to blatantly break one of the most basic rules of the road?In this episode, Jake and Ant discuss the morality of skipping red lights on a bike. They begin by chatting about unexpected outcomes of laws that are designed to improve safety and the possibility that running reds is actually safer for cyclists. They discuss the “Reverse Peltzman effect'' and how by making a behaviour more risky, people compensate by being more careful, which may be enough to outweigh the increased risk.They also talk about whether the laws applied to cyclists on the road are justified, the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, as well as musing about what changes may be beneficial for road safety.Thanks so much to the people who've left reviews! We read them all and the words of encouragement mean the world to us. If you could spare the time, leaving a review on Apple Podcasts would help us a lot. If you don't have Apple Podcasts, feel free to rate using whatever service you use. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of the Western abandonment of Afghanistan after decades of support.We begin by chatting about some necessary context on the history of Afghanistan, both cold war era and post 9/11. Ultimately, we discuss the limits of one person's moral agency (can the president be personally blamed? Was there any winning decision to be made?), when it may be just to invade or 'nation-build' and the limits of respecting sovereignity and self-determination. Specifically, we also discuss the concept of a 'just war' and Mill's self help test in the context of war. Factcheck timeline here: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/What are your thoughts, should Biden have put his foot down and managed the pull out differently, or even cancelled it? Do let us know and chat to us on our facebook page, insta or email anthony@treepoints.green.Thanks to the Dream Factory in Shoreditch, our new studio.As always, reviews really help us, please follow and review on your podcast platform of choice and contact us on your social media of choice. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/moedt/message If you'd like to listen ad-free (on any podcast app) and support us as creators, become a member for as little as $2 per month at: https://plus.acast.com/s/moedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Comments 
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store