Will, Kelci, Sophie, Felix
In this episode of college vs philosophy podcasters Kelci, Sophie, Will, and Felix discuss the moral dilemma of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). With 2 for and 2 against, the podcasters debate if PEDs should still be used, if they should be regulated, or if they should be banned overall. Within the podcast we discuss many cons of PEDs, including the deception and cheating it's caused. We also dive into what good can come from performing enhancing drugs, like faster recovery from injuries or extra help for children with growth issues. The podcasters discuss if PEDs are worth the risk of the side effects that can come from it. They also discussed how it would look during sports games, and proposed a PED only league. This raises concerns however, as it can deter attention away from the league that's not cheating, and it can also raise impossible expectations for all players. This leads to a heated debate and raises a question of whether a conclusion will ever be reached.
On this episode of college vs killing podcasters Felix, Will, Kelci, and Sophie dive into the moral dilemma of torture, specially torture in a ticking time bomb case. The podcasters first examine what torture is and different views against the morality of torture including the Utilitarian and Kantian view. The group also dives into different authors' viewpoints on the scope of why torture could or could not be justified. After setting the stage for what torture is, the group debates over their views on torture and whether they are for or against it. The group discusses torture in the matter of a ticking time bomb case while connecting it to recent real life events and discussing alternatives for torture.
In this episode of College Vs Killing, Sophie, Will, Kelci, and Felix discuss the question of the heavily debated topic of whether it is morally ok to kill and eat animals. The speakers debate on the types of killing and the pros and cons of each. The podcasters lay out the different types of killing which included subsistence, therapeutic, and Sport hunting. In this episode, the podcasters debate which is morally acceptable by listing the arguments against and for each type. The podcasters also link these killing types to different philosophical theories like utilitarianism and ethics while connecting killing and eating animals to relevant real life situations in order to effectively answer the moral question.
Talia, Charlize, Kevin, Charlie
It is our last episode of our podcast, To Be or Not To Be: Morality! On today’s episode we talk about the morality of human enhancement. This is a super tricky topic, but we try to manage it by beginning with the morality of sports-enhancing drugs like steroids, and look at this within cases about Olympic athletes, Simone Biles and Micheal Phelps. Philosopher Darrin Belousek helps us out with the complexity of the sports-enhancement argument, but then we transition to philosophers Michael Sandel and Frances Kamm to help structure some conversation surrounding the morality of transhumanism. Overall some of our viewpoints can be summarized into how Charlize and Charlie love Adderall, Kevin will love his children unconditionally, and Talia says ”heck no” to two Albert Einsteins.
Welcome back to our podcast, To Be or Not To Be: Morality. Today’s topic surrounding the morality of the death penalty definitely shows itself as a little controversial within our group, but we cover both sides of the argument from those who want to abolish the death penalty and those who justify it. We refer to philosophers, Reiman and Chan, who provide some great justifications for and against the death penalty. We even bring in a real life scenario of serial killer David Russell Williams, who received a sentence to 25 years in Canada, which stirs up the conversation. Take a listen, if you dare.
Welcome to our podcast, To be or not to be: Morality, where we dive deep into the controversial topic of whether it is morally okay to kill and eat animals. Our hosts are Charlize, Talia, Kevin, and Charlie, and we explore some famous philosophical moral arguments from Peter Singer, Roger Scruton, and conversations related to sentience, hunting, and food served at restaurants. We give our personal opinions, and get into the nitty gritty of whether or not we believe it is immoral or moral to eat animals. We hope you enjoy our episode, and hopefully it makes you think about your stance, and personal opinions on this topic!
Isabella, Will, Eliza, Dan
In our final episode, we discussed some of the problems presented by the growth of artificial intelligence, specifically the influence that deepfakes and job loss have in future society. We discussed how deepfakes can play a role in politics, misinformation being spread through social media, and how evidence in courtrooms will be changed in the future. Next we talked about the threat to jobs presented by generative ai. We discussed how technology has influenced jobs in the past and compared this to the unique threats posed by ai today. To conclude, we discussed how ai taking jobs specifically targets creatives and poses a risk to human interaction.
In today's episode of Theoretical Thrills, we ask the question “Is torture ever morally justified?” using the example and idea of “ticking time bomb cases”. We discussed a few different perspectives showcased in class including Davis, Miller, Kantiantism, Utilitarianism, and Absolutism. Throughout the podcast, we discuss our personal views regarding whether torture is morally justified, and we come to similar conclusions in different ways. Within the podcast, we establish our group concern for making a universal law to decide whether torture could ever be morally permissible because we are using ticking time bomb cases that play on extreme circumstances and exceptions to normal circumstances.
This episode is centered around the question “Is it ever morally ok to kill and eat animals?” and references different perspectives and texts including utilitarianism, sentient beings, types of hunting, and necessities. We discussed the different perspectives and ideas regarding killing animals and how it relate to humanity and different situations. We also discuss the difference between humans and animals regarding Kant’s definition and discuss moral duties and moral lines. We use moral theory and our own experiences to evaluate whether we individually believe it is morally permissible to kill animals in any setting.
Katie, Lucas, Ryan, Gracie
During this podcast, we talked about human enhancement and its morality. We started by defining transhumanism. Then, we transitioned into talking about the movie Gattaca. We explained how transhumanism plays a role in this world and how we thought we would react if we lived in this world. We compared the world in the movie and the real world by talking about differences in social classes and discrimination. We briefly mentioned Michael Sandel’s argument related to human enhancement. After that, we moved on to performance-enhancing drugs in real life. Specifically, we discussed the article by Darrin Belousek regarding Baseball and how performance-enhancing drugs impact sports. Three arguments were mentioned: The Kantian Argument, the Liberty View, and the Utility View. Next, we also gave our own opinions if they should be permitted in baseball or other sports. We gave examples of having one league that allows performance-enhancing drugs and one league that doesn’t. Finally, we gave our opinions and wrapped up the podcast.
In episode two of The Moral Compass, we discussed whether state punishment, especially the death penalty, is morally justified. We had two moral philosophers who supported state punishment and the death penalty and one moral philosopher who was against the death penalty. The other moral philosopher remained doubtful and swung between the two sides. The two philosophers who supported the death penalty spoke from different points of view and used different justifications to support their arguments. One is a Retributivist and the other one is a Consequentialist. The Retributivist used Desert-Based Justification, Forfeiture-Based Justification, and “Justice”- Based Justification and the Consequentialist used Deterrent, Incapacitation, and Catharsism throughout the podcast. On the other hand, the moral philosopher against the death penalty is a Theoretical Abolitionist and incorporated arguments from another philosopher Jeffrey Reiman. He objected to many ideas from the Retributivist and the Consequentialist, claiming that there are lots of biases and injustices in the system, especially regarding the death penalty. Finally, all the moral philosophers agreed that it is necessary to have state punishments. However, the philosophers didn’t land on the same page for the death penalty and the discussion needs to continue.
In this podcast episode, we discussed whether it is morally ok to kill and eat animals. We had three philosophers who thought it was morally ok to kill and eat animals and one who disagreed. We started by talking about sentience, the food chain, and the circle of life. Then, we defined different types of hunting including therapeutic hunting, subsistence hunting, and game hunting, and discussed whether each of them is morally permissible. Utilitarian ideas were used throughout the podcast to support the argument that it is morally ok to kill and eat animals because it brings more happiness and more good to humans than harm. The philosophers also incorporated Singer and Scruton’s ideologies about speciesism, giving animals equal weight as humans and treating animals in a humane way before eating them. Finally, all the philosophers landed on the same page and are convinced that eating and killing animals is morally ok.
Bella, Travis, Yike, Nathan
On this episode of Everyday Philosophy, Yike, Bella, Nathan, and Travis discuss perhaps their most controversial topic yet – the death penalty. Each person shares their unique perspectives on the death penalty and looks at both sides of the heated debate. Certain recent cases are discussed, such as Ta’Shawn Taylor’s horrendous crimes, as well as Brenda Andrew’s appeal to her death row sentence due to sex discrimination from prosecutors. Prosecution involving the death penalty is also explored in this episode, specifically in Ohio, where the costs of execution by lethal injection are explored and debated. We hope you enjoy our attempt at answering the question, “Is state punishment – especially the death penalty – ever morally justified?”
In today’s episode of Everyday Philosophy, host Yike Feng welcomes Travis Smith, Nathan Wilson, and Bella Lewis, each of whom will argue on behalf of philosophers and journalists. Together, an attempt will be made to answer the question, “Is It Ever Morally Okay to Kill and Eat Animals?” Travis will be arguing on behalf of Peter Singer, Nathan on behalf of Duclos and Gary Varner, and Bella on behalf of Roger Scrunton, with contemporary commentary from Yike on behalf of David Wallace. In a group discussion, comments will be made about current farming practices in the United States and abroad, and each individual gives their personal perspective on animal ethics issues at hand.
Andy, Max, Jess, Olivia
Welcome to our THIRD episode of After Hours With Aristotle, where we unpack the difficult topic of human enhancement and the morality behind such. In this episode, we touch on the various definitions and branches of the wider umbrella of transhumanism, as well as looking at the prominent philosophers and their stances. Then, we will go into group discourse about what we think on this intense topic. We hope you enjoyed our episode, and we will continue to use many philosopher’s ideas, theories, and our own, to rationalize our day to day decisions.
Welcome to our second episode of After Hours With Aristotle, where we unpack the difficult topic of state punishment, and more specifically the death penalty. In this episode, we touch on the definition of state punishment and the big question surrounding it and the implications of such, we will look at both retributivist and consequentialist arguments, while also looking at abolitionist arguments too to see if punishment is even ever warranted. Then, we will go into group discourse about what we think on this intense topic. We hope you enjoyed our episode, and we will continue to use many philosopher’s ideas, theories, and our own, to rationalize our day to day decisions.
Welcome to our first episode of After Hours With Aristotle, where we unpack the difficult topic of the morality of killing and eating animals. In this episode, we touch on the topics we learned in class, ranging from Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Scruton’s argument for Moral Carnivorism, and our opinions relating to those ideas. Our open dialogue applies many different angles as to the moral consequences and benefits of killing and eating organisms– as seen when we present the 3 different kinds of hunting. We hope you enjoyed our episode, and we will continue to use many philosopher’s ideas, theories, and our own, to rationalize our day to day decisions.
Cindy, Logan, Emily
In this installment of Moral Mojo, we take our philosophical stances on human enhancements. We all agree that certain human enhancements are morally permissible, such as antidepressants, artificial limbs... Cindy draws the line at genetic modifications, but Emily and Logan feel that it is morally permissible. Cindy thinks that it will erode our social fabric of mutual aid, violate our autonomy, and create unfairness. Logan and Emily essentially believe that society and the way in which the world currently operates, already casts these problems onto us, and by genetic engineering, we will equalize instead of creating a further divide.
In this installment, we will be diving into the morality of torture. Logan will take the argument that torture is morally justifiable in all circumstances due to the law of utilitarianism, in the case that torture will lead to a net positive. Emily and I are anti-torture absolutists, we think torture is never morally permissible, under any circumstances, due to Kantian ethics pertaining to autonomy and the fact torture creates an unfair power difference between the torture and torturee. The cases we are using to illustrate our points are the ticking time bomb case, stolen baby case, as well as military interrogation.
Cindy and Emily take the stance that it is sometimes permissible to kill and eat animals and Logan takes the position that it is never morally sound. First we define and take our positions in relation to objectivism, subjectivism, and popular relativism. Cindy and Emily follow the general principles of subjectivism and Logan identifies with objectivism. We then talk about the moral implications of the Lobster Festival. Next, we identify and discuss the morality behind different types of hunting and justify our opinions. We consequently go into Scruton’s article which mostly embodies mine and Emily’s view on this topic of taking the middle ground. We all agree that inhumane practice against animals is morally unjust, but we don’t feel that animals have no moral rights, but only Logan thinks that warrants abstaining from eating animals all together. Finally, we talk about Singer’s point surrounding how sentience plays a role in this debate.