Advertise on podcast: Ethics Untangled

Send us Fan Mail The idea of structural injustice - broadly, injustice that results from social structures rather than from the wrongdoing of individuals - is something that has a lot of currency nowadays, but it presents a bit of an ethical puzzle. Basically the puzzle is this: if it doesn't involve wrongdoing by anyone, then in what way is it injustice, but if it does involve wrongdoing by people, in what way is it structural? Sonny Kim is a Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. In this conversation, he lays out the dilemma a bit more clearly than I've just done, and tells me how he thinks it can be resolved, making sense of the idea of structural injustice and showing where responsibility for it lies. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail One of the many technological advances that have been made in recent years is the ability of computers to synthesise people's voices to a very high standard. Voice synthesis can produce new, entirely synthetic voices, but it can also reproduce the voices of real people, to the point where it's difficult if not impossible to tell the synthetic voice apart from the real one. Matilde Nanni, who is based at the University of Inland Norway in Lillehammer, thinks voice donors, i.e. people whose voices are used to train voice synthesis software, can sometimes be harmed through this process in ways we should be concerned about. Here are a few links to recent papers on the topic recommended by Matilde: Berkowitz, A. E., & Sweeney, M. E. (2025). Look Who’s Talking: Voice cloning as tension point between identity and data. Philosophy & Technology, 38(4), 131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00965-7Berkowitz, A. E., & Sweeney, M. E. (2026). Simulating Voice and the Simulacra of Voice Clones. Philosophy & Technology, 39(1), 4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-01027-8Leuenberger, M. (2025). The role of the voice for identity and implications for voice cloning technology. Philosophy & Technology, 38(4), 175. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00969-3 Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail There are many children in the world who either do not have parents, or do not have parents who can look after them, and who would benefit greatly from being placed with adoptive families. Some ethicists have argued that this state of affairs means that procreation is impermissible - we should not bring more children into the world when there are children we could adopt instead. In this conversation I talk to Giuli Cavaliere, Lecturer in Engaged Philosophy at University College London, who has written about this question, and also about the related question of whether states should fund assisted procreation, again when adoption exists as an alternative. Giuli recommends this paper for an opposing view to hers: Rulli, Tina (2016). Preferring a Genetically-Related Child. Journal of Moral Philosophy 13 (6):669-698. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail Content warning: This episode contains frank discussion of death and of various forms of body disposal, which some might find distressing. Sarah Carter-Walshaw, Lecturer in Applied and Inter-Disciplinary Ethics at IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds, has been thinking about the ethics of what happens to us after we die. The problem is that the current most popular methods of body disposal - cremation and burial, aren't very environmentally friendly. The good news is that other, greener methods are available. The bad news is that, so far at least, these haven’t really caught on. In this conversation we discuss why not, as well as the ethical question of whether we have an obligation to consider these forms of body disposal for ourselves. Sarah is holding a virtual workshop on body disposal ethics at IDEA: The Ethics Centre, University of Leeds on 9 July 2026. Register for free here: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/4RXPASJpiW. Further Reading: Balonier, AK, Parsons, E, & Patterson, A. The unnaturalness of natural burials: dispossessing the dispossessed. Mortality. 24(2), pp.212–230Booth, R. 2023. The Guardian: 'Boil in the bag’ environmentally friendly funerals arrive in the UK.Darwall, Stephen. 2017. “What Are Moral Reasons?” The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 12: 1–24.Dembosky, A. 2024. NPR: The ultimate green burial? Human composting lets you replenish the earth after death.Mason, A. 2023. What’s Wrong with Lookism? Personal Appearance, Discrimination, and Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.​Rieder, TN & Bernstein, J. 2020. The Case of ‘Contributory Ethics’: Or How to Think about Individual Morality in a Time of Global Problems. Ethics, Policy & Environment. 23(3), pp.299-319.   ​Schafer, C (2012) Corpses, conflict and insignificance? A critical analysis of post-mortem practices. Mortality. 17(4), pp.305-321. ​Schwenkenbecher, A. 2014. Is there an obligation to reduce one’s individual carbon footprint? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 17(2), pp.168-188. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail Is it ever morally acceptable to keep pets? While most of us take pet-keeping for granted and think of it as a source of affection, companionship, and care, it is possible to see it very differently. Angie Pepper and Richard Healey argue that pet-keeping is not simply a private choice, but a socio-political institution that raises deep questions about power, control, and harm. In our conversation, I ask them to explain and defend their view that keeping pets is morally impermissible, and to explore what alternatives might look like for our relationships with animals. A short, accessible version of Angie and Richard's paper is here: https://iai.tv/articles/the-unjust-power-dynamics-of-pet-ownership-auid-3518 Another of their papers is here: Healey, Richard, and Angie Pepper. "Interspecies justice: agency, self-determination, and assent", Philosophical Studies 178.4 (2021): 1223-1243. Work with an opposing view: Cochrane, Alasdair (2009). Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies, 57(3), 660–679. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x Cochrane, Alasdair (2014). Born in chains? The ethics of animal domestication. In Lori Gruen (Ed.), The Ethics of Captivity (156–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press. A general intro to the ethics of pet keeping (also with an opposing view): Palmer, Clare and T. J. Kasperbauer (2022). Companion animals. In Benjamin Hale, Andrew Light and Lydia Lawhon (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics (343–354). London: Routledge. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail Can organisations themselves be trustworthy, or is trustworthiness only a quality of individuals? This question matters for how we think about public institutions, businesses, and charities – and about the responsibilities they bear when people rely on them. Philosopher Matt Clark joins me to unpack what trustworthiness means, what kind of control and awareness an organisation would need in order to count as trustworthy, and why values matter in this context. Along the way, we discuss examples such as the Metropolitan Police and sketch what a genuinely trustworthy organisation might look like. Here's what Matt suggested for further reading: Katherine Hawley. 2017. 'Trustworthy Groups & Organisations.' In P. Faulkner & T. W. Simpson (eds.), The Philosophy of Trust (Oxford University Press) https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0014Matt Bennett. 'Trusting Groups.' Philosophical Psychology, 37:1, 196-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.2179478C. Thi Nguyen. 2022. 'Trust as an Unquestioning Attitude.' In Tamar Szabó Gendler (ed.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 7 (Oxford University Press) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192868978.003.0007Hawley expresses scepticism about the possibility of trust in groups, Bennett provides a different argument to Matt's on why trusting groups is acceptable, and Nguyen is referenced by Matt in the podcast as having a different view of trust. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail In this episode, we’re asking whether people can really have genuine emotional reactions to artificial intelligence. Many of us already feel things towards AIs – whether that’s frustration with a chatbot, affection for a companion robot, or even comfort in talking to a virtual assistant – but should we take these emotions seriously? Philosopher Rebecca Wallbank joins me to explore what counts as a ‘genuine’ emotion, whether our responses to AI differ from our responses to fiction, and what it means to say that these emotions might be profound. Together, we’ll consider whether there’s anything irrational about these reactions, and what their significance might be for our emotional lives in a world increasingly shaped by AI. Here's Rebecca's paper on the topic: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/59762/chapter-abstract/508607528?redirectedFrom=fulltext Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail In this episode, we’re looking at the ethics of long COVID and the ways it is reshaping how we think about disability, care, and community. Long COVID has left millions of people living with chronic symptoms, often without adequate medical or state support. Philosopher Élaina Gauthier-Mamaril joins me to talk about her project, which uses podcasting not only to share stories but also as a disability-centred research method, archiving the knowledge and resilience of disabled communities. We’ll explore ideas such as “disability doulas”, the legacy of HIV activism, and what needs to change in how we respond to disability in the wake of COVID. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail In this episode, I'm talking to Matilda Carter, a lecturer in Applied Ethics at IDEA The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds, about the ethics of dementia care, and asking what justice requires for people living with dementia. In her book, Relating to People Living with Dementia as Equals, Matilda argues that the way we think of and treat people living with dementia raises issues concerning power, stigma, and the structures of care. Drawing on a relational conception of justice, Matilda examines how domination and oppression can shape the lives of people with dementia, and why we should recognise their capacity to live authentically. We’ll also discuss advance directives, secure care, and what a more just system of dementia care might look like. Some further reading and other links recommended by Matilda: Self-advocacy books: Christine Bryden, Will I Still Be Me?Kate Swaffer, What the Hell Happened to My Brain?Wendy Mitchell, Somebody I Used to KnowRichard Taylor, Alzheimer’s From the Inside OutCritical Dementia Studies (an edited collection that includes some chapters by self-advocates)Organisations supporting self-advocacy work: Dementia Alliance InternationalAlzheimer’s Disease InternationalSources discussed in the interview: Ronald Dworkin, Life’s DominionIris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of DifferenceAndrew Firlik, “Margo’s Logo”Rebecca Dresser, “Dworkin on Dementia”Agnieszka Jaworska, “Respecting the Margins of Agency”Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail In medical ethics, competence (sometimes called decision-making capacity) refers to a person’s ability to make informed choices about their own healthcare. It is a central concept because respect for patient autonomy depends on the patient being able to understand, evaluate, and communicate decisions about treatment. Danielle Bromwich is a medical ethicist at the University of Leeds. In a paper co-written with Joseph Millum from the University of St Andrews, she argues that the way medical ethics has treated competence has been mistaken, that ethicists have been conflating two distinct concepts, and that this confusion has the potential to lead to bad decisions being made about patient care. We also explore the implications her account has for other domains in which we give and refuse consent, such as sexual relations. The paper we discuss in this episode is available here. Danielle and Joseph have also written a book about consent, which is available here. There will be a further episode of Ethics Untangled featuring Danielle soon in which we talk about the book and the ethics of consent more broadly. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail People who think and write about the ethics of artificial intelligence sometimes talk about a 'responsibility gap'. The thought is that there are instances of harm resulting from the use of AI systems where it's difficult or impossible to know who or what should be held responsible. Some have further argued that the existence of this gap shows that our current concept of moral responsibility is not fit for purpose, and that we need to change it through a process which philosophers sometimes call 'conceptual engineering'. Enrico Galvagni and Fabio Tollon, both based at the University of Edinburgh, have an interesting contribution to make to this debate - they do think we need to engage in conceptual engineering, but they are interested in whether, and how, the concept of moral responsibility can be preserved, rather than changed. Enrico and Fabio's paper on the topic is here: Engineering responsibility in the age of AI: amelioration or preservation? Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail In this episode, we’re diving into the ethics of drill rap - a genre that has been celebrated for its creativity and authenticity but also heavily criticised for its alleged links to violence. Drill is often portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and some have called for it to be censored. Philosopher, and Beacon Junior Research Fellow at University College Oxford, Tareeq Jalloh, joins me to get underneath the discourse around drill. We discuss what the evidence shows about drill's supposed role as a cause of violence, as well as the wider social and racial dimensions of the controversy. Together, we’ll ask what’s really at stake when society debates the ethics of drill. Tareeq's paper on the subject is here: T. Jalloh, “ Does Drill Rap Cause Violence, and, Even if it Does, Should it Be Censored?,” Philosophy & Public Affairs (2026): 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.70015. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail Content note: This episode discusses pornography in an academic context, focusing on ethical and philosophical arguments. Feminist critiques of pornography have a long history and take many different forms. One influential line of critique focuses on claims about authenticity and the suggestion that certain forms of representation may be ethically problematic, particularly for women. In response, some producers and commentators have argued for the value of ‘authentic’ pornography, appealing to a mixture of ethical and aesthetic considerations and sometimes blurring the distinction between the two. In this episode, Rosa Vince, a philosopher based at IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds, examines these arguments and explains why they find the ethical case for authenticity in pornography unconvincing. The discussion explores questions about representation, discrimination and harm. Some further reading recommended by Rosa: Willis, Ellen. 2014. “Feminism Moralism and Pornography.” In The Essential Ellen Willis, edited by Nona Willis Aronowitz, 94–101. University Of Minnesota Press.Taormino, Tristan. 2013. “Calling the Shots: Feminist Porn in Theory and Practice” in The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure edited by Tristan Taormino, Celine Parreñas Shimizu, Constance Penley, Mireille Miller-Young. The Feminist PressRooster, Hello. 2021. “From Victim to Activist: The Road to Ethical Porn” in We Too: Essays on Sex Work and Survival, edited by Natalie West with Tina Horn. Feminist Press. 148–154.Mac, Juno, Hello Rooster, Misha Mayfair, and Lina Bembe. 2019. “Aesthetics vs Ethics: Expanding Definitions of Feminist Porn.” In A Decriminalised Future: Sex Workers’ Festival of Resistance. Recording available at: https://decriminalisedfutures.org/aesthetics-vs-ethics-expanding-definitions-of-feminist-porn Macleod, P J. 2021.“How feminists pick porn: Troubling the link between ‘authenticity’ and production ethics” in Sexualities Volume 24, Issue 4.Gallant, Chanelle. 2017. “Why I Started The Feminist Porn Awards 10 Years Ago” Huffpost. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-i-started-the-feminist-porn-awards-ten-years-ago_b_587559afe4b0f8a725448343Crutcher, Emily E. 2015. ““She’s Totally Faking it!”: The Politics of Authentic Female Pleasure in Pornography” in New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law ed. Lynn Comella and Shira Tarrant. Praeger. Pp.319-334Berg, Heather. “Porn Work, Feminist Critique, and the Market for Authenticity.” Signs, Spring 2017, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Spring 2017), pp. 669-692Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail Lisa Herzog is Professor of Philosophy at the Center for Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. The subject of this conversation is time, not in the abstract but how much of it we have, and what we might choose to do with it. We start by discussing whether people in general are lacking in free time. And then we move on to why it might be important to try to give people more time, not just for their own health and happiness, but also because of the costs to society and democracy of people being too time-poor. At the end, we get onto some specific policy measures that might help. The conversation is based on a chapter of Lisa's latest book, which you can get here.  Some links to further reading as mentioned in the conversation: Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life by Theda Skocpol. Anderson, E. (2025). Local Knowledge in Institutional Epistemology1. Australasian Philosophical Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/24740500.2024.2422551 Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/

Send us Fan Mail AI-generated content is a familiar and increasingly prevalent feature of social media. Users post text, video, audio and images which have been created by AI, sometimes being clear that this is what they're doing, sometimes not. This isn’t always a problem, but some ways of using AI-generated content do raise significant dangers. So do social media platforms need to have policies in place specifically to deal with this form of content? Jeffrey Howard is professor of political philosophy and public policy at University College London. In a paper co-authored with Sarah Fisher and Beatriz Kira, he argues that policies that target AI-generated content specifically aren't necessary or helpful. It was great to get the chance to talk to him about why he thinks this, and how platforms should moderate this type of content without shutting down valuable free speech. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. As well as the podcast, Ethics Untangled is also the name for the long-form online presence of IDEA. Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bluesky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idea_leeds/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/idea-ethics-centre/