Graham, Lillie, Mason
This episode of The Turkey Chronicles covers “Is it ever morally okay to kill and eat animals?” Throughout our conversation today, we will discuss topics including sentience and whether or not animals are considered sentient beings, the criteria for sentience according to David Foster Wallace, and animals’ ability to express their preference versus their ability to express their behavior. Then we will shift into a discussion regarding factory farming versus subsistence farming, how to care for and kill animals morally, and the Divine Command Theory. We hope you tune in and we look forward to sharing Episode 2 with you all!
In episode 2 of the Turkey Chronicles, we discussed “torture and ticking time bombs: is torture ever morally justified?” as our topic of debate and discussion. We began with a quick conversation regarding the definition of torture as described philosophically by Miller and a more lengthy definition by the UN for constrast. To continue the discussion on torture, we debated “breaking the will” which Miller suggests means that we break one’s autonomy during torture. Next, we switched gears into Davis’s understanding of shock: a certain way of life explains the shock, it is the shock, not the way of life that is decisive in understanding torture. After this, we finally moved into ticking time-bomb cases. We started with an explanation of ticking time-bomb cases and the time sensitivity, high risk, and non-combatants in danger. We justified TTB through the lens of consequentialism and utilitarianism. We then followed Davis’ counterargument as he mentioned the need of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of TTB, however, Alhoff states that empirical evidence is nearly impossible to find/ have for TTB cases.
Matt, Neil, Tom
In today’s episode of The Philosophy Podcast, we are going to cover multiple different moral viewpoints and discuss the matter of whether or not it is morally alright to kill and eat animals. Discussing these points today will be Matt, Tom and Neil, providing a wide range of personal opinions on the matter coming from different perspectives and backgrounds. With reference to readings done in class, we attempt to answer the question of which moral standpoint provides a better approach to the discussion of whether or not we should kill and eat animals, applying the moral approaches of both Bentham and Kant as well as others related to previous readings.
Alex, Matt, Philip
In this episode, we dive into the question of whether or not it is ever morally okay to kill and eat animals. We look at this moral debate through the lens of moral objectivism, relativism, and utilitarianism. Incorporating personal experience, class discussions, and class readings we attempt to find clarity on the debate across the different moral stances. We outline what these stances entail, what the various kinds of hunting are, and how they all blend together as arguments for and against the hunting and eating of animals being moral. It is difficult to completely answer the question but by the end of the episode, we all express our personal opinions/answers to the question.
On today’s episode, we tackle the morality of state punishment, specifically the death penalty. We start by prefacing what punishment and state punishment are and how they differ. We look into how they can be morally permissible despite their prima facie morally wrong nature. Using these reasons, we then tackle the morality of the death penalty, while using some topics and statistics discussed in class, including Reiman, Chan, Jackson, the National Research Council on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, and more. We break down these topics to attempt to conclude the morality of the death penalty. Overall, we formulate a standpoint on the death penalty that considers all its implications.
Charlotte, Meghan, Raquel
In this episode of Dilemmas, Dialogues, and Duties, Raquel, Meghan, and Charlotte cover the question of whether it is ever morally okay to kill and eat animals. By using philosophers such as Singer, Kant, and Scruton as well as various philosophical principles this question is unpacked. The three take a clear stance that it is considered morally acceptable to kill and eat animals in some circumstances. Turning first to the ideas of Singer and his principle of equal consideration, then to the ideas of Scruton, Utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics among other philosophical principles. It is also interesting to hear what the podcasters have to say about the counterargument that argues that killing and eating animals is not morally just.
In Dilemmas, Dialogues, and Duties, we discussed whether torture is ever morally justified in a ticking time bomb situation. First, we state what a ticking time bomb case is, which is when there is a situation where torture occurs for a bomb being able to be found and innocent lives can be saved. The three philosophers discussed are Davis, Miller, and Alhoff. Davis takes a semi-Kantian perspective, believing in the practical absolute prohibition. Miller does not permit torture because it is against one's will and lastly, Alhoff takes a more utilitarian perspective since he believes that it should be more situational and that if we believe a case could occur then we must understand if torture would be morally permissible in that particular case. We conclude a discussion that we believe Alhoff’s argument to be most persuasive since there are cases in London where torture could save innocent lives.
Emily, Julia, and Sophia
In today’s episode of Moral Philosophy Pholks, we touched on several philosophical theories, philosophers, and important articles regarding the question: Is it ever morally ok to kill and eat animals? For example, we talked about Utilitarianism, the theory that says we should maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. We also explored Peter Singer’s utilitarian argument about how animals have sentience; therefore, their suffering should be considered. We also mentioned Wallace, who talks about the morality of boiling a lobster alive. Moreover, we talked about Kantism and a philosopher named Roger Scruton, who believed that since humans have moral duties, they have moral rights, which cannot be said for animals. Finally, we also mentioned Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, which emphasizes the importance of being a virtuous person. Tune in to hear more about the controversial and sizzling debate over the morality behind killing and eating animals!
In today’s episode of Moral Philosophy Pholks, we touched on several philosophical theories regarding the important question: Is the state ever morally justified in killing its citizens by applying the death penalty? We first give a definition of punishment and distinguish between it and state punishment. Most of our points come from Dr. Rebecca Chan’s article on punishment. From here, we delve into two main theories regarding justification for punishment: Retributivist theories and Consequentialist theories.
Retributivist theories focus on justifying punishment because of what someone has done in the past. There are three types of Retributivist theories: desert-based, forfeiture-based, and justice-based. Desert-based punishment involves punishing an individual because of what they deserve, forfeiture-based punishment says that when someone does wrong to others they forfeit their rights, and justice-based means punishment is necessary for maintaining justice. In contrast, Consequentialism focuses on the future and the good consequences punishment can have. We touch on the ideas of deterrence, incapacitation, and catharsis and how these support punishment. We also delve into Reiman’s article where he argues that it is good in principle to avoid the death penalty and bad in practice to impose it. He believes that since we don’t have information to prove the death penalty prevents or supports murder, we are unable to base our conclusions on data that hasn’t been proven. Tune in to learn more!
Cayli, Chloe, Paige
This episode of Pondering Philosophers discusses the age-old question of whether it is morally justifiable to consume animals. In this episode, we will examine the thought provoking moral perspectives of philosophers Kant, Singer and Scruton and ideas like utilitarianism and the different types of hunting. Using these perspectives, we dig into the benefits and costs of killing animals and meat consumption, each with different reasons, to provide potential listeners with a holistic message. We challenge beliefs on meat consumption, animal suffering, and the morality that we warrant animals versus humans. Using these different outlooks, we are able to dive into our own personal experiences as well as what we see in society today. Join us as we explore these questions through various lenses and hear arguments from different philosophical views!
This episode of Pondering Philosophers discusses the controversial question of whether torture is ever morally justifiable. In this episode, we will investigate the varying perspectives of philosophers like Michael Davis, Seumas Miller, and Fritz Allhoff and look through their conceptual lenses. We will critically examine the varying definitions of torture and how varying philosophical ideologies do or do not align with the moral permissibility of torture. We aspire to challenge our listeners’ existing beliefs on torture by applying philosophical ideas that they may not have previously considered. Using these different outlooks, we are able to dive into how personal experiences and emotions interfere with one’s moral compass and guide them to pursue actions that they might not personally find morally right. Join us as we explore these questions through multiple viewpoints and dive into our own inquiries about applications of torture in society today!
Juliet, Michelle, and Sami
Our main question in this episode is this: is it ever morally OK to eat and kill animals?
Along the way, we ask the following questions.
Why should we worry about the morality of killing animals?
We discuss what sentience is, and then Utilitarianism and Peter Singer’s views. Is it speciesist to think it’s ok to kill and eat animals? Does sentience make animals equal to humans? We explore Kantian ethics and Roger Scruton’s defense of carnivorism.
We then ask: does the method for killing animals matter for morality’s sake?
We talk about David Foster Wallace’s famous essay about boiling lobsters alive, as well as Scruton’s warning that excessive violence against animals violates our duty of care. And we discuss Kant’s warning that cruelty toward animals might cause cruelty toward humans.
Finally, we ask whether the reason for killing animals matters for morality’s sake. We evaluate three different types of hunting, outlined by Joshua Duclos, and we consider what Utilitarians, Kantians, and Scruton would say about all three types of hunting.
We conclude by asking what the true difference is between animals and humans, and we note Scruton’s approach, calling for the mindful killing/consumption of animals.
In this episode of the “The Ethical Exchange,” Sammy, Michelle, and Juliet discuss the question: “Is torture ever justified, especially in ticking time bomb cases?” We first lay down the definition of “Ticking Time Bomb Cases” followed by our evalutation of Seamus Miller’s and Michael Davis’s differing accounts of torture. We then examine both Kantian and Ulilitarian perspectives on torture in Ticking Time Bomb Cases, weighing whether an action’s intention or consequences matter more when one is faced with such a moral conflict. We discuss Davis’s “absolutist in practice” strategy, which proposes that no “real world” scenario could possibly justify torture, as well as Fritz Alhoff’s objection to this argument. Finally, we discuss whether terrorists or other agents of mass harm still retain their rights not to be tortured by examining the Forfeiture and Aggregative Rights Strategies. Join us today as we discuss this complicated and divisive moral issue!
Eliza, Elyse, Hailey
In the debut episode of Wakeful Thoughts, Eliza, Elyse, and Hailey discuss the slightly uncomfortable question of whether killing and eating animals is ever morally okay. While most people would like to think the answer to this question is a simple yes, it's a little more complex. But who would want to explore these complexities as doing so causes most of us to question our morality? Well, we do, and we'll explain why later. Throughout the episode, four different articles with four different authors are considered. We dissect the four separate arguments and attempt to consider all of the various perspectives to conclude where we fall on this issue.
In this episode of Wakeful Thoughts, Elyse, Eliza, and Hailey delve into the complex question of “is it ever morally justified for the State to administer capital punishment?” They explore core philosophies on punishment, contrasting retributivist and consequentialist perspectives, while discussing principles like justice, deterrence, and human rights. Citing recent studies, they assess whether the death penalty effectively prevents crime and address its ethical and societal implications. This episode offers a balanced, in-depth look at both supporting and opposing arguments on capital punishment, inviting listeners to consider the nuanced moral dimensions surrounding this issue.
Christina, Gavin, Max, Valentina
Welcome to What Would Socrates Do? In our first episode, we tackle the controversial topic of killing and eating animals. Is it moral? Is it right? Are you a murderer for eating a cheeseburger? Through our discussion, we reflect on the topic while exploring different viewpoints expressed by various philosophers over time such as Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism, Speciesism, and finally Virtue Ethics. This is a very complex issue: as a society, even across cultures, there isn’t a universally accepted stance. Some might argue for humane treatment, some might find a way to justify meat-eating based on human needs, and others argue for avoiding meat consumption altogether. What is important is that we keep reflecting on these issues and recognize that our choices matter.
In this episode, we look into the moral and practical implications of state punishment, focusing on the death penalty and justifications for it. While many people see the death penalty as a form of justice in response to serious crimes, there is debate about whether it really deters crime. There is no concrete evidence that the death penalty will effectively prevent the rate of crime, leaving its efficacy in question. Additionally, we discuss the troubling possibility of wrongful convictions and the risks of irreversible punishments like execution. We discuss the questions that this raises. Is it enough to rely on hope alone to justify such a final punishment? Does the death penalty really provide effective closure for society and those who have lost loved ones? Join us as we examine these ethical and societal concerns.