Critics like Shoshana Zuboff call Big Tech a parasitic system of control—but philosopher Peter Königs thinks that story is overblown. His 2024 Philosophy & Technology paper argues that the panic around “surveillance capitalism” exaggerates its harms and ignores its benefits.



We discuss his case that targeted ads aren’t especially manipulative, that social media’s political and mental-health effects are far less dire than claimed, and that data collection doesn’t necessarily destroy privacy or freedom.



Is Königs offering a reasonable correction to digital-age hysteria, or just apologizing for the algorithms that rule us? To help answer this, we are joined by STS scholar Michelle Charette

In this episode, we read “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation”, by Stephen Kershnar and Nathan Bray. In it, they argue that cultural appropriation is neither morally wrong nor socially harmful. They reject claims that it constitutes theft, disrespect, or oppression, insisting that no one owns cultural ideas or symbols and that cultural mixing often benefits everyone.



In this episode, we debate whether a property-rights-based argument for it holds up, whether offense and inequality matter morally, and if there are cases where cultural appropriation really is wrong. Ultimately, we agree that in cases when it seems bad, it’s usually bad for reasons other than the fact of it’s cultural appropriation.

Is moderation just fence-sitting, or is it a forgotten virtue? In this episode, we sit down with philosopher Marcus Arvan to discuss his new book Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate. We dig into why radicals often steal the spotlight, how moral certainty can slip into fanaticism, and why history may vindicate moderates more than we think. We also debate Arvan on the moral permissibility of centrism.



Marcus also runs the Philosophers’ Cacoon, a philosophy blog dedicated to early career philosophers. Check it out here.

In this episode, we explore a very provocative argument in contemporary animal ethics: the moral defense of violent direct action to protect animals. The pseudonymous philosopher Ivar Hardman challenges both mainstream liberal ethics and the cautious pacifism of figures like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. His essay, “In Defense of Direct Action”, argues that it is prima facie morally permissible, in some cases even required, for individuals to use coercion, including violence and property destruction, to prevent the serious and wrongful harm of animals.



Drawing on common sense morality, Hardman builds a case for treating militant animal rights activists not as moral outliers, but as people following ordinary moral principles to their logical conclusion. We explore the paper’s key claims, how it situates itself against animal ethics orthodoxy, and what it implies for the legitimacy of groups like the Animal Liberation Front.



If you want to offset your meat consumption (as mentioned by Ethan in the episode), check out FarmKind



Check out Stephan Kershnar’s controversial publication record (we mentioned at the end of the episode). https://philpeople.org/profiles/stephen-kershnar

In this episode, we delve into Emily Tilton and Briana Toole’s forthcoming chapter, “Standpoint Epistemology and the Epistemology of Deference,” featured in the Blackwell Companion to Epistemology. We are joined by two guests: Michelle Charette, who recently completed her PhD in Science and Technology Studies, and John Atytalla, who holds a PhD in Philosophy.​



Tilton and Toole critically examine the prevailing trend of epistemic deference – where individuals are encouraged to accept the judgments of marginalized groups as their own. While acknowledging the importance of recognizing marginalized perspectives, they argue that habitual deference can inadvertently hinder the socially dominant from cultivating essential epistemic skills, such as empathy and critical inquiry. They advocate for an epistemic framework centered on inclusion and active engagement rather than passive deference.



We had a mixture of audio setups in this episode, so there are a couple of audio anomalies.



Feature Image from Frits Ahlefeldt

In this episode, we dive into Matt McManus’ The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism and ask whether the fusion of liberalism and socialism makes sense – or if it’s just a contradiction in terms. McManus argues that liberal values like individual rights and democracy can be reconciled with socialist commitments to economic justice. But not everyone buys it.



Critics from the Marxist left see liberalism as a bourgeois ideology that ultimately serves capitalist interests, making true socialism impossible within its framework. Meanwhile, libertarians argue that socialism is inherently coercive and incompatible with liberal freedoms. Even within mainstream liberal thought, there’s skepticism about how much economic redistribution is too much before it undermines individual autonomy and market efficiency.



Is there a viable middle path, or is liberal socialism just wishful thinking? Let’s find out.

In this episode, we read Kieran Healy’s provocatively titled essay, “F**k Nuance,” where he argues that an overemphasis on nuance can hinder the development of effective sociological theory. He argues that piling on distinctions can make theories more convoluted without making them more useful. Instead of sharpening insight, excessive nuance can turn sociology into an endless exercise in hair-splitting—good for showing off, bad for explaining the world.



We are joined by Science and Technology Studies PhD candidate Michelle Charette to debate the merits of Healy’s arguments.

On this episode, we return for a sequel to EP19’s topic: the potential immorality of monogamy. On that episode, we discussed Harry Chalmers’ paper “Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?” This time, we interview the man himself to see where our discussion might have gone wrong the first time around.



We also discuss “Monogamy Unredeemed”, Harry’s defence of his original article, responding to a response paper from Kyle York.



Subscribe to Harry’s substack here

What if democracy isn’t broken, but its very foundation—elections—is the problem? In this episode, we unpack Alexander Guerrero’s provocative case for lottocracy: a system that replaces elected officials with randomly selected citizens. Guerrero argues that elections breed inequality, corruption, and short-term thinking, while lottocracy promises fairness and more authentic representation.



But can we really trust random citizens to govern? In this episode, Ethan and Victor debate whether lottocracy can deliver better results than electoral democracy.

In this episode, we welcome Mike Watson, political theorist, artist, and author, to explore the intersections of digital culture, socialism, and existential thought. We read Mike’s new book, Hungry Ghosts in the Machine, where he explores how online culture shapes community, addiction, and identity.



On this episode we ask, is our malaise in the digital age caused by capitalism or is it intrinsic to the human condition? We also explore how the left might help us escape these patterns of media consumption.



Follow Mike on Twitter: https://x.com/_leftaesthetics

In this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to manipulate encourage citizens to make better choices.



We are also joined by our co-founder and former co-host Gordon Katic. We discuss Gordon’s excellent new Cited podcast series on the “Rationality Wars” that explores the way libertarian paternalism has benefitted big corporations and might be based on questionable evidence. Our discussion led to a broad debate about the nature of human agency and freedom.



For a write-up on the role behavioural economics played to benefit big corporations, see Gordon’s recent article and Jacobin. For criticisms of libertarian paternalism we also read Gerd Gigerenzer’s “On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism“.



Production note: Gordon was traveling when we recorded this and did not have his mic. Therefore, his audio quality was not always the best. Apologies for this!

In this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take: monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners.



Chalmers sets himself a high bar: not only does he need to show that non-monogamy is morally preferable, but that monogamy is in principle morally problematic. We discuss Chalmers’ main responses to defences of monogamy, including specialness, sexual health, raising kids, practicality, and jealousy. We also read and briefly touch on a response to Chalmers’ piece by Kyle York.

On this episode, we dive deep into Brian Leiter’s “The Case Against Free Speech.” Leiter questions the sanctity of free speech, suggesting that not all speech deserves equal protection if it causes societal harm.



Is it really a blanket right, or are we just covering up society’s harms? Tune in as we tear into the freedoms you thought you had and discuss whether Leiter’s ideas are a blueprint for a just society or just an excuse to gag annoying blowhards. See this Vox article for more



Production Note: Victor’s mic broke right before recording, so his audio sounds worse than usual.

In this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas, suggesting that utilitarians, who support sacrificing one for the greater good, could be prioritized as potential victims.



This week we are joined by Ben Burgis. He is a philosophy instructor and host of the YouTube show Give Them An Argument. Burgis is also the author of Canceling Comedians While the World Burns and Give Them an Argument: Logic for the Left.

On this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “In defense of the ivory tower: Why philosophers should stay out of politics“. In it, van der Vossen argues that academic philosophers have a duty to avoid engaging in politics. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic integrity.



We do not find many of these arguments convincing. Listen to find out why! A note, this is our final episode recorded before our hiatus (over 6 months ago) in case we make any outdated references.

Hide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In 2023, the very edgy Journal of Controversial Ideas published “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible“. In it, Fira Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex.



We recorded this episode more than six months ago and we’re excited (and nervous) for people to finally hear it. This one got contentious! We debate whether there are good reasons to think zoophilia is immoral. We also argue about whether it is even worth asking the question of the article. Consider this a trigger warning!

We’re back! For our relaunch episode, we chose an article that helps us reflect on this podcast’s mission: “Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk” by Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman.



The paper argues that there is a difficult dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressive duties not to offend), or they must be granted some level of exemption from these duties in their professional work.



In this episode, we debate whether this dilemma is plausible, and whether our podcast risks violating certain moral duties if we decide to tackle especially edgy topics.

This week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar's The Human Predicament.

We interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about his controversial ethnographic methods and the unsavoury people he studies. "They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends," writes Teitelbaum.

We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there's nothing wrong with that.