Advertise on podcast: Surprising Ethics

Are breakups actually *good*? Do they unlock striving, freedom, and authenticity? Or is anchoring and commitment the ideal path? Is the trend towards non-committal, undefined 'situationships' bad or good, and why? And how should we break up? Should partners have a “clean break”, or do they actually have special duties to each other even after a breakup? And can the act of breaking up with someone ever be morally problematic? Tune in as your host Will chats to two philosophers of love and breakups, Dr Justin Clardy and Idil Çakmur. Together we revisit some of our most fundamental assumptions about whether and how to part ways.   Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Being straight: a fair sexual preference or discrimination? What about not wanting to date people of certain races? Or screening dates based on height? What counts as discrimination in dating, and what is simply following your preferences? Two leading philosophers of dating have a new take. We discuss freedom of association, fetishisation, dating apps, looks-based discrimination (or “lookism”), and more.  Warning: explicit language. Send in voice notes for the listener special based on this episode! By 19 July 2026. Email: [email protected] Include name/pseudonym and location. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Are activists who fight for a good cause with a bad strategy on the hook morally? The episode begins with a striking thought experiment which suggests the answer may be ‘yes’. The episode also asks: Are hard-line approaches to activism ineffective? What can the case study of extreme vegan activism tell us? And what are some principles for a successful activism?  This episode includes an interview with the strategist Tobias Leenaert, a writer on activist strategies and founder of a global charity. The episode covers direct action protests, idealism, compromise, the emotions of activism, catharsis and community, kindness in communication, the methods of anti-slavery abolitionists, and Max Weber’s thoughts on how to make the world a better place.   Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

What actually counts as self-defence when waging war? The 21st century has seen a pivot towards ‘preventive wars’: wars fought in anticipation of a possible future attack. The war in Iran is the latest example. What can philosophy tell us about these wars? My conversation with Prof David Rodin, a world-leading ethicist of war, covers these questions and other topics, including the Israel-Palestine conflict; the "conspiracy paradox"; nuclear threats; the moral duty to spy; the psychology of those waging unjust wars; and non-military ways of warding off an invasion. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Research shows it’s love – not money or social status – that can soothe the suffering many men are feeling today. But is the manosphere taking this balm away from men? It encourages men to see women as stereotypes and as commodities. This could render them incapable of romantic love with a woman, according to many philosophers of love. And if we want to turn our backs on Andrew Tate and co, is there actually a healthier alternative form of masculinity to which men and boys can turn? I asked therapist Patrick van Straaten. Our chat emphasises vulnerability, authenticity, and real connection with other human beings. With thanks to Lucia Cucchi for her very helpful guidance on these topics. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Many countries are considering lowering the voting age. But right now it’s 18 nearly everywhere. Why? Why not 14, 12, or even 6? Don’t teenagers and kids have interests in having a voice? Adults may on average have more experience than teenagers, but then again some 15-year-olds may be politically wiser than some 50-year-olds. Check out the surprising case for a radical reduction in the voting age with a political philosopher who has a new take on the question. We also explore broader questions about the distinctive value of childhood, age discrimination, and how society should structure freedoms for adolescents.  Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

How do we craft a diet in the child’s best interests? That’s the question Rachel Fredericks and Jeremy Fischer set out to answer, leaving behind the usual arguments about climate and animals. These two ethicists combined philosophy, psychology and nutrition science and came up with an intriguing answer. Turns out, what makes a diet good for a kid is about so much more than just food. It’s about moral development, identity, ideology, and learning how to choose for yourself. We put this ideal diet to the test with a panel of six parents, to see how the authors' ethical arguments might play out in the real world. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Are new year’s resolutions a golden opportunity for self-improvement, or do they reinforce a damaging ideology of work and “self-improvement”? And how can we best decide on a resolution? This episode explores two philosophical challenges to the way we set new year’s resolutions. First, Bertrand Russell claims we should free ourselves from pro-work ideology, and embrace idleness and leisure. If we step back from hyperproductivity, we might want to reject new year's resolutions. Second, Kieran Setiya claims that we will never be fulfilled if the sources of meaning in our life mainly lie in projects and achievements. He suggests we should reorient our lives towards processes and the now, not completable tasks whose promise lies either in the future or the past. Combining Setiya’s ideas with work in the psychology of habit formation could lead towards a new way to set our new year’s resolutions. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Envy is seen as a deadly sin. But not by Professor Sara Protasi, who argues that envy is often good – even *virtuous*. Envy drives progress, she claims. Feeling envious is natural. And without it, we might never leave the couch. But how can such a destructive emotion be morally good? And even if envy makes us more productive in the short term, does it corrode our happiness in the long run?  Our conversation covers self-improvement and productivity; self-esteem, radical self-acceptance, and whether we should compare ourselves to others; love, friendship and envy; the politics of envy; inequality; and how racist attitudes may be driven by envy, focussing on racism against Asian Americans. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

We normally think: how can we stop AI harming humans? We may also have to ask: how can we stop humans harming AI? After all, there’s a surprisingly strong case for the rights of future AIs. If future (or present!) AIs have rights, why? And what actual specific rights could some future ChatGPT assistant even have? Will AIs wake up, and become conscious or sentient? Or is digital consciousness just not ever possible? Given the risks, should we stop AI development in its tracks to avoid creating sentient AI who might then be abused? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

We think of ourselves as rational agents, able to choose well for ourselves. Professor Sarah Conly calls this into question. She argues that we’re reliably bad at making certain decisions. So much so that governments should step in, and make many bad choices like smoking illegal – for our own good. But where does she draw the line? Aren't some decisions sacrosanct? What is the true value of freedom? Is paternalism insulting, or could it be the answer to societal crises? Tune in to hear Conly’s surprising case in favour of the “nanny state”. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Some philosophers now argue that monogamy is morally wrong. Imagine your friend came and told you that you can’t have any other friendships. You’d be bemused. But what’s the difference between this and exclusivity in love relationships? Is jealousy a good reason to be monogamous? Or is ethical non-monogamy – such as open relationships or polyamory – the only ethical approach? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Society assumes that animals do not have moral rights. But what could this be based on? How could we argue that humans are the only animals to have rights? And where do we draw the line? These questions about animal ethics also raise the question: why does each of us human beings, ultimately, matter as an individual? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Hedonists claim that pleasure is all that makes for a good life. Are they right that relationships, achievements, and meaningfulness have no intrinsic value?  We explore the surprising arguments on both sides of this debate about wellbeing, including a version of Nozick’s infamous experience machine thought experiment. Would you plug into an experience simulator, forever cutting yourself off from the real world to have the best time of your life and all the 'happiness' you could want? Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Philosophy, made accessible, intriguing, and surprising. Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics