What exactly makes us feel disgusted? Is disgust for a person or group ever justified? And is disgust useful, or should we try to eliminate it?

Chapters:

[00:00] Introduction to Disgust and Cognitive Content

[00:11] Paul Rosen's Experiments on Disgust

[02:16] Disgust and Its Connection to Animality and Mortality

[03:05] Projective Disgust and Social Implications

[05:06] Disgust in Legal Theory and Practice

[08:00] Personal Anecdotes on Disgust and Social Change

[11:18] Disgust Towards Transphobia and Body Malleability

[13:24] Disgust in Art and Pornography

[22:17] Disgust, Fear, and Contamination

[23:13] Overcoming Disgust and Social Progress

[29:49] Caste and Disgust in India and America

[31:45] Tagore's Critique of Caste and Disgust

[35:02] Progress and Challenges in LGBTQ+ Rights

[43:07] The Role of Disgust in Political and Social Issues

[52:45] Age Discrimination and Societal Attitudes

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

What does it mean to be patriotic, or to love your country? Some argue that patriotism is virtuous because it allows us to transcend our selfish needs and act for the good of our community. But others argue that patriotism is overly narrow-minded, arbitrary and sometimes immoral.

Microdigressions Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@Micro-Digressions

Chapters:

[00:00] Introduction to Brain Nevada

[00:27] Exploring John Lennon's 'Imagine'

[01:11] Critique of Utopian Ideals

[01:52] Possessions and National Identities

[05:44] The Role of Security Companies

[06:19] Metaphysics of Property and Groups

[11:58] Patriotism and Fictional Nations

[15:07] Patriotic Love and Social Constructs

[17:44] Allegiance and National Identity

[23:34] Rationality of Patriotism

[29:09] Patriotism Post-9/11: Sentiment and Criticism

[30:56] Moral Conflicts in Patriotism

[34:28] Patriotism and Unjust Wars

[40:00] Loyalty and Its Limits

[44:09] Patriotism in Historical Contexts

[47:28] The Invisible Hand

[49:23] Patriotism in a Globalized World

[56:09] The Future of Nation States and Global Culture

[58:55] Closing Thoughts

In this episode of Brain in a Vat, Georgi Gardiner returns to explore the epistemic value of tarot: its capacity to shape self-understanding, spark creative reflection, and influence major life decisions.

Drawing on personal experience and philosophical analysis, Georgi examines how tarot can serve as a mirror for introspection while also raising concerns about confirmation bias and self-deception. The discussion also considers the history and diversity of tarot practices, and compares tarot with artificial intelligence as a tool for navigating uncertainty and meaning.

Whether you are a skeptic, a believer, or somewhere in between, this conversation offers a thoughtful examination of how we seek knowledge and what counts as a good reason to believe.

[00:00] Introduction and Guest Welcome

[00:11] Georgie's Personal Journey with Tarot

[00:51] The Impact of Tarot on Decision Making

[11:50] The Epistemic Value of Tarot

[28:22] Potential Criticisms of Tarot

[31:28] The Five Waves of Tarot History

[38:29] Confirmation Bias and Flipping the Reading

[42:25] Comparing Tarot and AI in Epistemology

[44:09] The Role of Tarot in Education and Research

[59:01] Concluding Thoughts

In this episode, Brain in a Vat is joined by public philosopher and author Agnes Callard to explore the relevance of philosophy in everyday life. Drawing from her work on Socrates, Agnes makes a case for why philosophical inquiry matters, now more than ever. From the pig farmer analogy to Socratic love, this conversation is a deep dive into how philosophy is a way of life.

Chapters:

[00:00] Introduction to the Guest and Topic

[00:44] The Monologue vs. Dialogue Experiment

[06:50] Philosophical Training and the Element of Surprise

[13:34] The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry

[21:45] The Pig Farmer Analogy and Life's Purpose

[29:26] Intellectual Progress and Stability

[31:41] Socratic Views on Love

[35:21] Friendship and Enemies in Philosophy

[47:47] Cultural Perspectives on Disagreement

[54:58] Conclusion: Inspiring Philosophical Lives

Are Jews entitled to their own homeland? Is the Israeli response to the massacre of civilians perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th justified? Should there be a ceasefire?

David's Article in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2023/10/21/its-not-the-occupation/

Raja Halwani wrote to us about Jason's exposition of his view at 33:06. Here is Raja's clarification:

**I wanted to clarify a point that Jason made during the interview with David Benatar. Jason asked Benatar what he thought of the view that “the view is that the Gazans are an oppressed people. They’ve been oppressed for so long that they’ve acted out of desperation. And there’s only two options that they have.” Jason goes on to say that I have defended the view that “the Gazans are an oppressed people who only have two options. The one option is to die and the other option is to attack, to attack Israel in order to secure some sort of freedom. Those are its only two options. And so ... Raja takes the view that if Hamas were to lay down its arms, then it’s just a slow death for the Gazans. That’s, that would be the future of Gaza.”

However, I did not make this claim about having only two options, nor would I, because it reads as a justification of killing civilians, especially given the context of the Hamas attacks of October 7 (and other attacks against Israelis). It reads as a justification because if death is one of only two options, then the second, to attack, seems permissible. The last sentence in Jason’s question, about Hamas laying down its arms, seems to especially imply this (though Jason did not intend to make me come out as justifying Hamas’s actions).

Jason attributes this view to me based on something I wrote in my blog (as he explained to me in personal correspondence). Here is the specific passage on which Jason bases his attribution:

People are quick to condemn Hamas for the evil that it has wrought, but they are as quick to neglect that Hamas acts out of sheer desperation, out of the sheer desire, no matter how steep the price, to score a victory against Israel, a country whose military might not even its prime ministers fully comprehend, and out of the sheer hopelessness of the slow death that their people has been dying. Although to explain this is not to justify it, I also ask the reader: What options do the Palestinians have? What do you advise them to do? Their lives are going nowhere. Peace initiative after peace initiative has failed them (and, to add insult to injury, they are blamed for the failure). No Palestinian state has emerged, and none is likely to given the current map (just look and see whether a state can be built out of the Swiss cheese that is the West Bank). Their tunnel has been long and with no light at its end. So what should they do? They ought to sit still and “take it like a man.” To suck it up. To bear the unfair burden of history. We have to tell them, “Misfortune has fallen upon you, and you may not extricate yourselves from it by killing civilians. Even as you yourselves die, slowly, surely, with no justification, and with barely an explanation, you may not take the lives of the civilians of your enemy. This is the noble way.”

Clearly, the passage is a bitter one about Palestinian loss and oppression, but it is as clearly morally ruling out the option of killing civilians. So even though Hamas might take up arms against civilians, this is not a morally viable options for Gazans or Palestinians in general. Hence, insofar as Jason’s question attributes to me a justification of attacks on civilians, this clarification should clarify that this is not my position.**

Chapters:

[0:00] Introduction

[0:22] Thought Experiment

[7:52] Historical context

[23:13] Two-State Solution

[27:46] Ethical Blockade

[31:37] What if Hamas laid down their arms?

[36:06] Current War

[45:46] Proportionality

[54:59] Concluding thoughts

[59:01] Outro

In this episode of Brain in a Vat, we examine two competing political visions through an AI debate between Plato and Robert Nozick. Plato defends rule by philosopher kings and a unified society, while Nozick argues for individual liberty and a minimal state.

Following our previous episode featuring Mill and Kant, we continue investigating major philosophical divides through thought experiments like the Allegory of the Cave and the Experience Machine. The episode considers justice, autonomy, and the proper role of government.

Join the conversation and decide which vision of society you find more compelling.

[00:00] Introduction

[00:30] Plato's Allegory of the Cave

[01:30] Philosopher Kings and the Ideal State

[03:28] Criticisms of Plato’s Republic

[18:54] Nozick’s Experience Machine

[24:04] The Minimal State and Taxation

[26:14] Anarchy vs. State

[36:12] Comparing Political Visions

[47:14] Final Reflections

Should we be allowed to sell our organs on the open market? Would the poor be exploited under such a system? And does organ donation impose an unfair burden on the relatives of those that need a transplant?

Eric Sampson and Rebecca Tuvel explore the contested issue of academic freedom. They discuss the tensions that emerge when universities try to balance the promotion of diverse intellectual perspectives with concerns over potential harm to community members, as seen in controversies involving figures like philosopher Peter Singer. 

Drawing on debates about gender, race, and ethics, they analyze the institutional challenges of fostering open inquiry while ensuring a safe and respectful academic environment. 

Join this conversation to reflect on the evolving landscape of higher education and the fundamental questions at stake in preserving academic freedom.

[00:00] Introduction

[00:09] Thought Experiment: The Peter Singer Controversy

[02:30] Academic Freedom vs. Harm and Danger

[07:36] The Role of Universities in Handling Controversial Topics

[11:46] Institutional Model of Academic Philosophy

[17:25] Historical Shifts in Moral and Scientific Views

[31:29] Debates on Harm in High-Stakes Moral Topics

[34:02] Mischaracterization of Controversial Views

[38:05] Protests and Speech Restrictions on Campus

[50:20] Viewpoint Diversity and Government Enforcement

[55:33] Donor Influence on Academic Freedom

[58:31] Boycotts and Freedom of Research

[01:02:01] Concerns of Indoctrination and Institutional Reforms

[01:06:59] Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Connor examines involuntary commitment, substance abuse disorders, and the ethical dilemmas surrounding parenting and children's welfare.

Should children be allowed to transition genders? When is the state justified in removing children from harmful environments? And what is the role of non-parental caregivers in a child's life?

Join us for this thought-provoking episode that pushes the boundaries of our intuitions and ethical considerations around children's rights.

[00:00] Introduction and Guest Introduction

[00:18] Thought Experiments on Involuntary Commitment

[05:11] Parenting and Authority

[06:19] Sufficiency vs. Maximality in Child Upbringing

[10:33] Children's Rights and Associational Rights

[20:56] Cultural and Parental Interests

[24:49] Gender Identity and Child Welfare

[36:55] Defensive Kidnapping and Ethical Dilemmas

[01:01:34] Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

Jared Millson delves into the intriguing world of conspiracy theories, exploring well-known cases like Pizzagate and lesser-known but historically significant events such as the COINTELPRO. The discussion spans the definitions and philosophical debates about what constitutes a conspiracy theory, the criteria for evaluating these theories, and the psychological and sociopolitical impacts they have on society.

Tune in to understand why some conspiracy theories should not be immediately dismissed and the role they play in democratic accountability.

[00:00] Introduction and Special Guests

[00:34] The Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory

[02:37] The Police State Conspiracy Theory

[06:37] Defining Conspiracy Theories

[15:54] Evaluating Conspiracy Theories

[29:35] The Unfalsifiability of Conspiracy Theories

[31:54] The Role of Renegade Scientists

[38:22] The Longevity of Conspiracy Theories

[48:27] The Psychological Appeal of Conspiracy Theories

[57:24] Final Thoughts

Peter Singer delves into difficult ethical questions regarding animal rights, the morality of factory farming, and difficult human-related ethical dilemmas.

Singer discusses his views as a consequentialist, examining the impact of our choices on animal suffering, the ethical considerations around organ donation from anencephalic children, and the broader implications of such decisions.

What are the moral implications of eating meat from factory farms versus ethically raised animals, and cannibalism under hypothetical scenarios with no harm to others?

Singer emphasizes the need for considering the consequences of our actions, shedding light on the pressing need to reform our food production systems and make more ethical choices in our daily lives.

Peter Singer’s Substack: https://substack.com/profile/4270932-peter-singer

Peter Singer’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@peter_singer

Peter Singer’s book, ‘Animal Liberation Now’: https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Now-Definitive-Classic/dp/0063226707

[00:00] A Philosophical Dive into Animal Rights with Peter Singer

[00:12] Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas of Human and Animal Lives

[01:59] The Complexities of Organ Donation from Anencephalic Children

[03:57] Comparing Human and Animal Rights in Medical Contexts

[06:08] Consequentialism and Individual Case Analysis in Ethics0

[7:42] The Ethical Quandaries of Parental Consent and Medical Decisions

[15:54] Navigating the Slippery Slope of Euthanasia and Assisted Dying

[25:41] The Ethical Considerations of Eating Meat and Factory Farming

[33:29] The Harsh Realities of Factory Farming

[34:45] Ethical Considerations and the Nature of Animal Suffering

[36:50] Addressing Common Objections to Animal Rights

[41:12] The Impact of Individual Choices on Animal Suffering

[43:43] The Role of Vegetarianism and Veganism in Reducing Demand for Meat

[01:00:46] Exploring the Ethical Implications of Consuming Expired or Discarded Meat

[01:04:50] Concluding Thoughts and Reflections

Jess Flanigan argues that personal income tax is illegitimate. But is the state ever justified in extracting money from its population to pay for public goods? Are property taxes and privatization of state functions better options? And if taxes are illegitimate, are we permitted, or even obligated, to stop paying our taxes?

[00:00] Introduction and Thought Experiment

[02:40] Justifying Taxes for Public Goods

[03:40] Alternative Tax Systems

[07:27] The Egalitarian Distribution Debate

[13:15] The Alienation of Labor in Capitalism

[17:49] Privatization and the Role of the State

[21:45] The Debate on Tariffs

[27:56] Economic Impact of Industrialization and Labor

[32:15] Debating Defensive Tariffs

[38:49] Funding Public Goods: Challenges and Solutions

[51:36] Libertarian Views on Government and Personal Freedom

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

If most voters are misinformed, is democracy legitimate? What sort of voting system should we have in its place? And should some votes count more than others?

[00:00] Introduction to the Problems of Democracy

[00:17] Brexit: A Case Study in Misinformed Voting

[05:33] Voter Behavior: Social Benefits and Signaling

[18:29] The Legitimacy of Democratic Systems

[30:32] The Challenge of Political Incentives

[33:02] The Abortion Debate and Judicial Power

[36:41] Depoliticizing Social Life

[43:10] Proposals for Enlightened Preference Voting

[55:10] Global Voting and Democratic Legitimacy

[58:28] Philosophical Reflections on Democratic Theory

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

Does our common understanding of mass shootings help us to prevent them?

Blankschaen argues that our common beliefs and media narratives around gun ownership, mental illness, and school policies are unhelpful in preventing future mass shootings.

Can we even provide an adequate definition of mass shootings?

Should we give up the concept of mass shootings altogether, and focus instead on the particular shooters and victims in each circumstance?

Read Kurt’s paper here: https://philpapers.org/rec/BLAAMS

[00:00] Introduction and Thought Experiment

[01:35 ] Exploring the Concept of Mass Shooters

[06:56] Challenges in Profiling and Predicting

[12:06] Defining Mass Shootings and Intent

[24:10] Policy Implications and Conceptual Concerns

[28:09] Terrorist Attacks vs. Mass Shootings

[29:31] Tailoring Solutions to Different Types of Violence

[35:54] Farm Murders in South Africa: A Case Study

[40:14] The Role of Guns in Mass Shootings

[42:53] Media Influence and Moral Panic

[55:18] International Comparisons and Cultural Context

[57:55] Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

Through comparisons to consequentialism and deontological ethics, Travis dissects the core principles and critiques of virtue ethics. Along the way, we discuss moral dilemmas, the application of virtues, and the real-world implications of ethical theories. Whether you're a student of philosophy or just curious about moral reasoning, this discussion provides deep insights into the essence of virtuous behavior and its place in ethical discourse.

[00:00] Introduction and Welcome

[00:14] The Drowning Child Thought Experiment

[03:53] The Virtuous Agent Problem

[04:45] Virtue Ethics vs. Other Ethical Theories

[13:48] Virtue Ethics and Practical Advice

[21:52] Challenges in Virtue Ethics

[29:42] The Moral Theory Bug

[33:26] Moral Rationalism and Obligations

[44:54] Virtue Ethics as a Theory of Good Character

[52:19] Eating Meat: Ethical Dilemmas

[57:39] Concluding Thoughts

You can also check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/[00:00] Introduction and Welcome

What is the underlying logic of woke ideology? Is it consistent, and can it justify the pursuit of equality of outcome, such as redistributing wealth and land?

Cofnas discusses the origins and evolution of wokeism, the moral and empirical premises underlying it, and the political dynamics between conservatives and liberals.

Tune in to gain a deeper understanding of the ongoing debates around equity, discrimination, and social justice.

You can also check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/[00:00] Introduction and Welcome

[00:16] Thought Experiment: Redheads and Slavery

[08:16] Applying the Analogy to Race

[17:00] Moral Responsibility and Social Justice

[32:20] Reparations and Environmental Factors

[37:17] Statistical Chance and Job Market Inequality

[48:43] Conservative Resistance to Wokeism

[54:59] The Long March Through Institutions

[58:02] Trump's Impact on Wokeism

[01:01:45] The Future of Wokeism and Conservative Strategy

[01:05:21] Philosophical Foundations of Equality

[01:10:47] Conclusion and Final Thoughts

How should we allocate our donations to address global issues effectively? Jacob discusses the principles guiding Effective Altruism, the importance of evidence-based charitable giving, the ethical implications of supporting local versus global causes, and the challenges of predicting long-term impacts.

The episode also delves into the significant debate within the effective altruism community about how to prioritize immediate needs versus future generations, and the potential benefits and risks associated with artificial intelligence.

Join us for a compelling conversation about making the most impact with your altruistic efforts.

[00:00] Introduction to Effective Altruism

[00:07] Thought Experiment: Allocating a Billion Dollars

[01:18] Effective Altruism: Head and Heart Approach

[05:12] Frameworks for Effective Altruism

[06:27] Measuring Impact and Effectiveness

[13:30] Obligations and Moral Considerations

[16:28] Global Development and Animal Welfare

[31:05] Long-Termism and Future Generations

[52:23] AI: Potential and Risks

[57:26] Conclusion

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

Is it possible for us to lead meaningful lives? Is there an ultimate point to our existence? Can we enrich our lives with the pursuit of love, knowledge and friendship?

[00:00] Introduction to the Meaninglessness of Life

[00:14] Tolstoy's Existential Crisis

[01:39] The Appropriateness of Sadness

[04:18] Everyday Meaning vs. Ultimate Meaning

[06:13] The Metaphysical Argument

[10:57] The Role of Accomplishments

[17:42] Philosophical Temperaments and Existential Angst

[23:14] The Value of Human Potential

[25:55] Questioning the Concept of Ultimate Meaning

[29:47] Objective vs. Subjective Meaning

[31:32] The Role of Values in Life

[34:22] Philosophical Perspectives on Immortality

[40:39] Balancing Everyday and Ultimate Meaning

[44:04] Cosmic Meaning and the Question of Suicide

Join us for a provocative episode on Brain in a Vat as we rejoin the infamous Stephen Kershnar, whose prior discussions have made headlines. This episode delves into affirmative action, demographic considerations in education and employment, and the ethics of statistical predictions informed by race.

The discussion debates the legitimacy and consequences of using race, gender, and other demographic factors in decision-making processes across various fields, from medicine and law to parole decisions. The episode explores the balance between fairness and efficiency, and whether algorithms could replace human judgment in critical decisions.

Don't miss this thought-provoking exploration of some of today's most contentious issues.

[00:00] Introduction and Guest Reintroduction

[00:25] Affirmative Action and Medical Care

[02:23] Market Preferences and Performance

[08:08] Challenges of Colorblind Policies

[17:44] Fair vs. Unfair Discrimination

[26:05] Statistical Predictors vs. Demographic Predictors

[27:45] Correlation vs. Causation in Performance Prediction

[31:31] IQ and Performance in Medicine

[33:27] The Ethics of Using Demographics in Decision Making

[41:59] Algorithmic Decision Making in Justice and Beyond

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

Was Kit Conner obligated to reveal his queer sexual orientation to play his role as a queer character on ‘Heartstopper’? Timmerman and Blankschaen argue that straight actors can authentically portray queer characters, addressing issues of character versus performer authenticity, potential harm to marginalized actors, and the broader impact on the industry. They respond to various objections and explore the philosophical and ethical nuances surrounding representation in media.

[00:00] Introduction and Episode Overview

[00:19] Thought Experiment: Kit Conner's Role in Heartstopper

[02:54] Character vs. Performer Authenticity

[10:28] Consequentialist Views on Performer Authenticity

[25:37] Public vs. Private Lives of Actors

[33:29] Alternative Rules for Casting Queer Roles

[37:03] Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity in Casting

[47:01] Optimism in Media Evolution

[49:30] Strongest Objections to the View

[52:03] Extending the Argument to Other Groups

[01:01:10] Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Check out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/