Olivia, Cole, Mia, and Julian
On Episode 3 of Moral Ponderings to Not Say at Thanksgiving This Year, the crew discusses the ethical implications of human enhancement. Two main types of human enhancement are discussed: PEDs in Sports and Genetic Selection. Should PEDs be legal? Should you be allowed to pick your child's genetic traits in advance? The crew discusses and debates these matters and whether or not humans should embody transhumanism and live life to the fullest or simply take advantage of the hand they've been dealt. While some believe that human enhancement would lead to purposeless lives, others believe that human enhancement would allow our lives to become more purposeful as we would not have to worry about our health as much. Take a listen as the crew debates human enhancement and decide for yourself whether or not human enhancement is morally permissible! Enjoy listening and stay tuned for more from the crew!
On this episode of “Moral Ponderings to Not Say at Thanksgiving this Year,” we discuss the morality of killing and eating animals. Through the showcase of a PETA Activist, local chef, and resident farmer, we discuss a variety of opinions and nuances in regards to the ethicality of killing and eating animals. Topics discussed include hunting, factory farming, methods of killing animals humanely, and animal rights. This episode poses three individuals with differing opinions on the killing and eating of animals and views how the three are able to reach a common ground through discussion and debate. Important philosophical concepts such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are meshed into the arguments of these individuals to add a philosophical component to their practical arguments for or against the killing and eating of animals. To see how this discussion unfolds, check out this week’s episode of “Moral Ponderings to Not Say at Thanksgiving this Year.” [Note: the podcast guests are fictional characters!]
On this episode of “Moral Ponderings to Not Say at Thanksgiving this Year,” we discuss the morality of killing and eating animals. Through the showcase of a PETA Activist, local chef, and resident farmer, we discuss a variety of opinions and nuances in regards to the ethicality of killing and eating animals. Topics discussed include hunting, factory farming, methods of killing animals humanely, and animal rights. This episode poses three individuals with differing opinions on the killing and eating of animals and views how the three are able to reach a common ground through discussion and debate. Important philosophical concepts such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are meshed into the arguments of these individuals to add a philosophical component to their practical arguments for or against the killing and eating of animals. To see how this discussion unfolds, check out this week’s episode of “Moral Ponderings to Not Say at Thanksgiving this Year.” [Note: the podcast guests are fictional characters!]
Emily, Will, Ben, Emma
In our final episode of DeacSpeaks, we discussed the moral concerns of Deepfakes and Generative AI. In this episode we discussed our opinions on the most pressing moral concern about deepfakes and considered whether there could be deepfakes produced that were overall good, We then discussed whether Universal Basic Income would be a good solution for job loss in an AI world and finally discussed our opinions on using generative AI on a daily basis, is it morally ok? Throughout listening to the podcast, listen for personal perspectives that furthered the complexity of our discussion on moral rights. We hope that everyone enjoys listening!
In our Second DeacSpeaks: Philsophical Conversations with Wake Forest Students we discussed “Torture and ticking time bombs: is torture ever morally justified?.” While in the beginning we discussed arguments in each of the homework readings, we spent the majority of the podcast discussing which definition of torture each person agreed with and if we believed torture was morally justified in general or ticking-time-bomb situations. Throughout listening to the podcast, listen for personal perspectives that furthered the complexity of our discussion on moral rights. We hope that everyone enjoys listening!
In our first DeacSpeaks: Philsophical Conversations with Wake Forest Students, we discussed “Is it ever morally ok to kill and eat animals.” While in the beginning we discussed arguments in each of the four homework readings, we spent the majority of the podcast discussing if we believe sentience should be an issue and what types of hunting are morally okay. Thorughout listening to the podcast, listen for personal anecdotes that furthered the complexity of our discussion on moral rights. We hope that everyone enjoys listening!
Laura, Rylie, Connor, Casey
In this episode of “To Cheat or Not to Cheat,” (following the other titles and rhyming with the first podcast), the team examines the question: are PED’s morally justified, when are they okay, when are they not okay, and are human enhancements morally justified and what comes with it. The team begins by defining PEDs, and evaluating whether or not it is alright to use them. We bring up notes from class and discuss our own opinions on it. We then discuss human enhancements, what they are, and what our opinions on them are. We brought up Belousek’s arguments and whether or not we agree. We brought up how the context of the film Gattica is evidence of the risks of human enhancement.
In this episode of “To Die or Not to Die,” the team examines the question: if state punishment is ever morally justified – especially within the context of the death penalty. The team begins by defining punishment, according to Chan, and evaluating the value of general punishment in deterring future bad behavior. The team also evaluates Chan’s retributivist and consequentialist justifications for state punishment. The team discussed the subjectivity of Chan’s forfeiture based justification in that if you do an egregious wrong, you should forfeit some of your rights, but just because you accidentally hit someone with your car, does not mean you should lose your right not to be hit by a car. We also discussed the excessive nature of some of the ways people are executed and the overall success of the death penalty in deterring mal behavior. We take a deeper dive into the overall ethics of the state killing another human.
Questions we address:
Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?
Is it an individual choice to do this, or should it be the FDA’s/government decision?
Do we have a duty to care? Is that because they have rights to be treated a certain way?
What about religious reasons? I.e., did God put these animals there for a reason?
Aren’t there other resources we can use for food?
What's the difference between killing a farm-raised animal and a wild one?
Is hunting for sport morally justifiable?
Should we give equal weight to the interests of all those affected by our actions, extending this to non-human animals as well?
Should human interests receive greater weight than non-human animals in cases of conflicts of interests?
Luke, Emma, Sammy, Brody
On today's episode of Philosophy for Dummies we covered all things surrounding artificial intelligence. We first discussed the different types of artificial intelligence including the difference between narrow and general AI and weak and strong AI. Then we went on to talk about the issues that arise from artificial intelligence being used in our society. These included the emergence of deepfakes and how they cause political destabilization, erosion of trust in video and audio, and increased deception, misinformation, and dishonesty. Lastly we discussed what effect artificial intelligence would have on jobs and how people might react to that. If any of these topics interest you make sure to stay tuned for this episode of Philosophy for Dummies!
On this episode of Philosophy for Dummies we discussed the moral justifications and objections towards ticking time bomb cases. We first concentrated on the fact that through the use of moral theories, specifically utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, we were able to take different positions and talk through our reasoning on torture in ticking time bomb cases. Additionally, we also mention the different strategies that are used to help justify torture including the forfeiture strategy and the justified infringement strategy. Lastly, if you want to learn more about what we did over Easter and the unfortunate score of Brody’s THREE baseball games this past weekend make sure to tune in to the second episode of Philosophy for Dummies.
Today on Philosophy for Dummies we talk about the moral dilemma of whether it’s okay to kill and eat animals. We discuss whether animals, specifically lobsters, feel pain and are considered sentient, what factors go into the experience of pain, the idea of speciesism and whether animals should be fully our equals. Next we talk about whether it's morally okay to eat animals in some instances and how we should go about eating them as well as contrasting the morality of hunting to eating animals. Finally, we apply moral theories to the question of eating animals. Stick around to listen for insight on Brody’s big game tomorrow morning and his love for food.
Charlotte, Olivia, Ava, Bennett
On today’s episode of Wake Up to Funlosophy, Charlotte, Ava, Bennett, and Olivia address the morality of human enhancements and the implications behind genetic modification. They examine topics such as Performance-Enhancing Drugs, and transhumanism to give context to their discussion on human enhancements. They also go over the difference between human enhancements vs. therapies and treatments to aid human life. Along with this, they detail the explanations behind the uneasiness that often clouds conversations about human enhancements including the autonomy, fairness, and lack of imagination objections. They wrap their conversation today by examining the perspective of Michael Sandel, and how his ideas along with those of other philosophers raise questions about how we should view the gift of life.
On today’s episode of Wake Up to Funlosophy, Charlotte, Ava, Bennett, and Oliva address the question, “Is torture ever morally justified?” They begin the discussion by looking into philosophers Seamus Miller and Michael Davis’s different definitions for what would qualify as torture, followed by an examination of “Ticking Time Bomb” cases. They then transition into an discussion of two competing arguments from Michael Davis and Fritz Alhoff for and against the justification of torture, using the moral theories of consequentialism and deontology. They wrap up this episode with their personal views on today’s discussion of torture and whether or not it is morally permissible.
On today’s episode of Wake Up to Funlosophy, Charlotte, Ava, Bennett, and Oliva address the question, “Is it Morally Ok to Kill and Eat Animals?” They begin today’s discussion by addressing arguments for and against the three main types of hunting: therapeutic, subsistence, and sport. From there, they transition into farming and the commercial side of killing and consuming animals, each sharing some different viewpoints from varying moral theories. Some of the key moral theories they analyze include utilitarianism and deontological ethics. They also discussed speciesism and sentience's role in the equality between humans and animals. They finish up today’s episode with the consideration of the complexity of the question itself and philosophical argument–highlighting the importance of examining each point of view.
Daisy, Matt, Odysseus, Mary
In this podcast, we talked about different perspectives regarding human enhancement. We mainly discussed performance-enhancing drugs (PED) and some cases discussed in Michael Sandel's "A Case Against Perfection". We talked about the moral implications of performance-enhancing as well as different philosophical perspectives such as Kantian and Utilitarian. We found human enhancement to be a controversial topic because it is difficult to draw a clear line between normal improvement and actual enhancement, and group members hold different opinions regarding this issue. Overall, we summarized philosophical interpretations of human enhancement and shared our opinions and interpretations despite some conflicts, which are also addressed in the podcast.
This podcast is about to discuss different views about whether torture is ever morally permissible. The first part addresses the question, “what is torture”, and discusses a definition.
We then discuss two view perspectives, Kantian and Utilitarian. Kantian moral theory holds negative attitude towards torture, even in the TTB (ticking-time bomb) cases, since the tortured are treated as mere means. Additionally, people cannot hope that torture can be universally adopted, and thus torturing is immoral. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, views torturing persons as morally permissible if it results in the utility of the society being larger than not torturing.
Some arguments against Utilitarianism are mentioned, the most important one being an empirical argument: Utilitarians need empirical evidence to justify themselves. The responses are: 1) we have experienced such cases historically, thus, by induction, we are possibly going to experience such cases in the future; and 2) even though we have not experienced such cases in the past, we can still think that it is possible to happen in the future.
Our podcast is a conversation about the topic of whether it is morally ok to kill or eat animals. We mainly talked about utilitarianism as our main theoretical support of arguments. Besides, we evaluated the concept of suffering and sentience based on the readings “Considering the Lobster” and “The Conscience Carnivores”. Finally, drawing from our personal experiences, we explained the concept of hunting in terms of the types and evaluated if some types are preferable to others morally.
In a word, we recognize that this question is highly affected by our subject feelings, like the extent of emotional attachment toward animals. Although we have reached a consensus that it is morally ok to kill and eat animals, we would still feel sorry seeing animals suffering, such as a lobster or a crab cooking alive, and believe that there could be a balance point in our relationship with animals. Therefore, we believe that the response to this question is more individualized, and a universal consensus is impossible.
John, Claudia, Efrem, Grace
In this episode of our podcast, we delve into the intricate and often controversial world of artificial intelligence and deep fakes. We explore the moral and ethical boundaries of using AI to create realistic, yet artificial, images and videos. By examining a range of perspectives we navigate the complex interactions between technology and authenticity. Our discussion extends to the potential impacts of AI on the job market, questioning how these technologies might replace traditional jobs or create new ones. From deep fakes in media to AI in the workplace, this conversation covers the current applications of these technologies and the myriad of justifications for their use. We also contemplate the future, discussing whether we will find ourselves a technological utopia or dystopia. This episode unpacks real moral concerns and practical implications of integrating advanced artificial intelligence into our daily lives and the global economy.
In this podcast episode we discuss the controversial subject of state punishment, and particularly the death penalty, as well as whether or not it is ever morally justifiable for the state to inflict punishment on one of its citizens. In approaching this question we felt it was important to find and consider various possible perspectives of argument, our own as well as other philosophers, and to reason through them. We sought to find their strengths and weaknesses and to ultimately come to a conclusion. From the retributivist and the consequentialist arguments for punishment to harrowing accounts of crime, we cover several modern arguments, and popular responses regarding the debate around punishment.
In this podcast episode we discuss the controversial subject of whether it is ever morally permissible to kill and eat animals. In approaching this question we felt it was important to find and consider various possible perspectives of argument, our own as well as other philosophers, and to reason through them. We sought to find their strengths and weaknesses and to ultimately come to a conclusion. From the argument of sustenance to killing for sport, this discussion covers many of the current ways humans kill animals, and the plethora of the subsequent justifications. We answer why it is ok to kill cattle and chickens, but not ok to slaughter dogs and cats and we recognize cultural and ethical differences across the world. This episode discusses real moral sentiments towards the normalized practice of killing and eating animals and uncovers potential alternatives for the future.