Daphne, Presley, Riley
This episode is about the question of whether we should kill and eat animals. We discuss ideas such as utilitarianism, moral relativism, Kantianism, and the ways that each of these ideologies look at killing and eating animals for human pleasure. Furthermore, we touched on articles we have read thus far such as Consider the Lobster, Equality for Animals, Is Hunting Moral, and the Conscientious Carnivore and others. From here, we incorporated our own ideas as well as philosophical concepts we have learned in class. We also discussed ways to potentially come to terms with eating animals and the morality of the subject in our own personal lives.
In this podcast, we discuss the moral question of whether it is ok to employ the death penalty as an institutionalized practice. We talk about what exactly punishment is and what it means to punish another person. We go through different justifications for punishment, such as the consequentialist and retributivist arguments. We discuss Rebecca Chan’s justification for capital punishment and Reiman’s arguments against capital punishment. From there, we shared our personal opinions on the death penalty and the idea of systemic and discriminatory justice systems. We also discussed what circumstances the death penalty is applied in. We also talk about theoretical and practical abolitionist arguments against the death penalty.
Jack, Karina, Ryan
The following outlines our discussion points for the topic “is it morally permissible to kill and eat animals.” We begin our discussion by consulting David Foster Wallace’s account of the Maine Lobster Festival. We move on to the article about hunting by Duclos. We did not consult the arguments of utilitarians. We moved from this discussion of the morality of hunting and the different types, to Peter Singer and his idea of equal consideration of interests. Furthermore, we engaged with Kant’s ideas of human beings and their need to be treated as ends and not just means as well as the idea that actions have moral worth if and only if they are governed by pure reason alone. We further discussed this idea of “pure reason” and eventually found ourselves consulting Scruton’s work. In the concluding parts of the podcast, the members of On The Record found themselves most closely relating with the Scruton's answer to this question of killing and eating animals.
The following outlines our discussion on the topic of the morality of torture and the existence of what we call “ticking time bomb” cases. We began our conversation first by trying to accurately understand torture by way of examples. Then, we consulted the definitions of torture proposed by Michael Davis and Seamus Miller. We then referenced a Kantian argument against the morality of torture as this helped us explore Davis’ “kinda Kantian” argument and the places where he differs from a kantian perspective. From this, we were able to explain that Kant and Miller take absolutist in principle stances on the argument of torture, while Davis argues an absolutist in practice position. This led into our definition of cases we call ticking time bomb cases in which torture would be morally justified under certain moral theories. Referencing a utilitarian argument, we find further flaws with Davis’ argument as he fails in his objection to empirical evidence. This objection allowed us to segway into Allhoff and his arguments. We believed as a group Allhoff’s arguments were the most compelling and aligned with our intuitive thoughts about the issue of torture overall.
Nathalie, Thomas, Vivian
Welcome to the premiere episode of Philo Talk, where we explore the depths of thought! Today we discuss the complex question: is it ever morally permissible to kill and eat animals? The three of us (Vivian, Nathalie, Thomas) all take unique stances on: The morality of killing animals Peter Singer’s proposal of equality among species How animals should be treated when their purpose is for human food Roger Scruton’s argument on killing animals Is hunting (Therapeutic, Subsistence, and Sport) morally permissible? While sharing our views we cover the concepts of sentience, speciesism, utilitarianism, utility, consequentialism, and much more. Hope you enjoy!
In tonight's episode of Phillow Talk, we will be discussing the moral implications of torture and whether interrogational torture is ever morally permissible. We will describe and share our thoughts on philosophers Davis, Miller, and Alhoff's accounts of what qualifies as torture. This will allow us to explore torture through a Kantian and a Utilitarian lens. Some terms and themes that will come up are Ticking Time Bomb cases, absolutism in practice versus absolutism in principle, breaking of will versus mere coercion, whether torture can only be applied to only humans or all sentient beings, whether empirical evidence is necessary to morally justify torture, and more. Hope you enjoy it!
Bada, Eric, Tyler
In this podcast, we discussed if it is ever morally acceptable to kill animals. To begin our conversation, we discussed Wallace’s article and explored the pros and cons of boiling a lobster. This eventually led to us discussing the philosophical meaning of sentience and the concept of humane versus inhumane killing. Next, we discussed Singer’s article and discussed the interest of animals should be considered. Additionally, we touched light on specicism and compared the differences between human suffering and animal suffering. The next concept explored was lab experimentation which involved the discussion on the validity of using animals over humans due to their difference in intrinsic worth. This then led to the discussion of our moral duties and rights towards animals that Scruton describes which led to our discussion on the different types of hunting as well as the pros and cons to each. Overall, we discussed four different articles, touched light on many philosophical concepts explored in class and discussed both sides of different arguments.
In our podcast, we started with a description of ticking time bomb cases with examples. We then shift into different types of torture include one-off, institutional, and interrogational torture. The first article we analyzed was Davis and why he viewed torture as never morally permissible. He stresses the importance of the physical and intellectual helplessness of the one being tortured. We then discussed Miller’s account, where he agreed with Davis about the morality of torture. Unique to his definition is the idea about breaking of the will. We also discussed the Kantian argument against torture, since people are used as means, and the Utilitarian argument based on the Principle of Utility. We concluded with a discussion of Allhoff and his differing opinion on torture, since he does not think torture is always morally wrong. He also responds to David with his methodological point.
Conor, Katherine, Lauren
In this episode of The Dilemma Diaries, Lauren, Conor and Katherine talked about the moral debate: Is it okay to kill and eat animals? The show begins with David Foster Wallace’s view on killing a sentient being and boiling a lobster. Each of the podcasters dive into their own perspectives on this topic and even question the lobsters personal pain. Later, they discuss hunting, more specifically, the case of Cecil the Lion. They agree that hunting is okay, but question: how far is too far regarding therapeutic, substantive, and sport-motivated reasons for hunting? Finally, they talk through Roger Scruton’s viewpoint on killing animals, and conclude that his perspective is the most agreeable of the philosophers they’ve studied thus far. Overall, this podcast episode dives into the meat industry and intentions of killing animals to rationalize whether or not it is okay.
Today in The Dilemma Diaries, Lauren, Conor, and Katherine take on the complex moral debate: Is the death penalty justified? The episode opens with Chan's view on punishment, which defines the standards for a situation in which one is receiving punishment. Each podcaster then presents their thoughts on retributivism, covering desert-based, forfeiture-based, and justice-based arguments that claim individuals earn punishment through wrongful acts.
This is followed by an exploration of the consequentialist justifications for the death penalty. This section considers whether punishment serves society by preventing future crimes, focusing on three major bases of justification: incapacitation, deterrence, and catharsis. The podcasters discuss the effectiveness of each rationale and debate their impacts on justice and safety.
They then delve into practical abolitionism, presenting Reiman’s argument, which opposes the death penalty. The hosts discuss Reiman’s perspective on societal progress and whether punishment should include death. Finally, they wrap up by examining theoretical abolitionism, questioning if the death penalty has a place in a just society.
Adam, Bryce, Pariss
In this installment of our podcast, Wake of Reason, we discussed the pressing question, “Is it ever morally ok to kill and eat animals?” All 3 hosts took relatively similar stances on the question, and were proponents of killing and eating animals, but under certain circumstances that are discussed within the podcast. We pulled information from all of our course texts, and either argued against them or utilized the information within to support our arguments. We also tried to remain respectful to opposing viewpoints, while still highlighting the aspects of our arguments that we felt were most convincing. We each put in substantial effort to prepare for the podcast, but we also wanted it to feel like we were simply having a conversation, and therefore didn’t script anything, outside of a few questions that we knew would facilitate conversation and lead to meaningful discussion.
In our second episode of our podcast, “Wake of Reason,” we discussed the question, “Is state punishment — esp. the death penalty — ever morally justified?” This time, our group made a greater effort to educate the audience about the philosophical terms and opinions that we've studied over the course of this unit. We then provided our own insight into the philosophical question at hand, attempting to utilize evidence from the course texts, and proceeding to build off of each other’s points in order to facilitate authentic discussion. We each came to the conclusion that while state punishment, in theory, can have its benefits, our current government system conducts operations in an immoral manner, and thus should be critically analyzed from a broader societal perspective, and eventually reformed. Furthermore, we found common ground in Reiman’s views on the death penalty and his four propositions from his article.
Adam, Evelyn, Reid
In this episode, we discuss the morality of killing and eating animals. One main topic discussed today was whether we should consider the interests of non-human sentient beings to be equal to those for humans. We concluded the interests should not be taken into account equally by drawing a distinction between humans and animals based on the greater intellectual capacity of humans. We then discussed whether adopting a utilitarian framework is adequate when comparing how the interests of humans and animals should be weighed against one another. With this we reached the conclusion that despite some validity in the utilitarian perspective, it does not fully encapsulate the higher capacities of humans and thus is not a sufficient framework to use in this scenario. Ultimately, based on the greater intellectual capacity of humans to have pleasure, we agreed it is morally okay to kill and eat animals.
We began the podcast by defining the definition of punishment and what it means for a state to punish someone, in regard to the death penalty. We then defined the difference between the Retributivist Justifications and Consequentialist Justifications as Retributivism is backward looking and Consequentialism is future looking. We examined different subtheories of consequentialism and retributivism and debated which ones we found to be the most convincing. Then we briefly considered what happens when we combine these theories, and agreed it seems to create a more flawed theory of justification. Lastly, we looked at different arguments regarding the death penalty including Utilitarian justifications and Reiman’s view points. Ultimately, we came to various conclusions on the morality of the death penalty.
Brian, Morgan, Sela
In this episode of The Dilemma Dialogues, we will tackle the controversial question of whether it is ever morally right to kill and eat animals. In this episode, we explore the concept of sentience as seen through David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster,” discussing whether it's justifiable to kill a sentient being for gustatory pleasure. We also draw upon Peter Singer’s utilitarian approach where we examine the moral significance of animal suffering and question speciesist beliefs. Additionally, we dive into Kantian ethics, analyzing how our treatment of animals reflects our moral character and autonomy. We also discussed how we disagreed with Kantian ethics and what we thought was confusing. Additionally, we include Roger Scruton’s perspective as the “conscientious carnivore” which challenges factory farming while advocating for local, humane practice. We hope you tune in as we weigh the moral implications of these diverse perspectives and consider whether there are ever circumstances where eating animals is morally acceptable.
In this episode of our podcast, we discussed the complex ideas and arguments surrounding ticking time bomb cases. There are many questions about ticking time bomb cases such as, what is morally justified and when actions are morally justified. In this episode, we talked about multiple perspectives such as utilitarianism, Kantian, Micheal Davis’s perspective, and Seumas Miller’s. Both Miller and Davis do not necessarily take a fully determined stance on whether or not torture is morally justified, but they go through different scenarios that could be justified. We go into the arguments that they have for and against torture in ticking time bomb cases. We discuss the different components of torture and different types of torture which come into the arguments that all perspectives use to argue if it is morally justified or not. We end the podcast by discussing our perspectives and why or why not we agree or disagree.
Ashlyn, Axel, Gracie, Peter
In this Episode of Dorm Room Dialects, a podcast made by philosophy students, we will tackle the question ‘Is it ever morally OK to eat and kill animals?’. We will begin by discussing the ethical implications of meat consumption and the meat industry in the United States and reference influential animal rights writers like Peter Singer. We explore this complex moral question through various moral theories including utilitarianism, and Kantianism. We discuss the moral status of animals, and how we think our society should treat them. Please join us in our discussion as we attempt to unravel this morally complex issue!
In this Episode of Dorm Room Dialects, a podcast made by philosophy students, we will tackle the question ‘In Ticking Time Bomb cases, is it ever morally OK to torture someone?’. We will begin by discussing the definition of ticking time bomb cases and give two real life examples. We explore the various philosophical points of view in regards to ticking time bomb cases. This podcast explains Miller, Davis and Alhoff’s points of view on these types of torture cases. As a group we share our varying opinions on each perspective and discuss which point of view is our favorite or makes the most sense. Please join us in our discussion as we attempt to unravel this morally complex issue!