There’s a growing range of ethics podcasts available to download — what makes this particular range interesting is that there’s not only ones that are useful introductory and advanced level discussions on the the topic of ethics, but also some that can be listened to with the younger years. Here’s some of my recommendations:

Cultural relativism is the idea that we cannot claim that there is a standard morality or values for all people, as they’re dependent on which culture or society you come from. It arose in the early 20th century, from the work of Franz Boaz, influencing sociology and anthropology, and could be interpreted as an effort to avoid prejudice and ethnocentrism in studying cultures other than our own.

However, in the very effort to make a stance that you cannot compare and then judge another group to your own for their different ethical systems or morality, it poses problems that undermines the very effort to be tolerant or understanding in the first place. It is one thing to make an effort to learn about differences; it’s another thing to say you cannot make any judgement or say that there is nothing you can claim is wrong with practices such as murder, abuse or oppression — just because you’re not from the same culture that allows them.

The self-refuting nature is also evidence in the notion that there’s no absolute right or wrong and it’s all dependent on culture  — what then can ever be judged as a crime? If there’s tolerance of everything, then is there nothing that can be done that could be seen as just?

While the effort to suspend judgement when in different places and times, and see that there may have been rules and customs that are alien to ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we cannot have changes and even improvements to our laws and rules, that are not dependent on culture and are instead based on a more universal approach to morality.

This talk by Dr Philip Nitschke was recorded at the Embiggen Books store in Melbourne, on his book Damned If I Do — by Philip Nitschke with Peter Corris.

Dr. Philip Nitschke is the founder and director of the pro-euthanasia group Exit International. Dr Philip Nitschke, PhD, MBBS, BSc (Hons) is the Founder and Director of Exit International. Born in 1947 in rural South Australia, Philip studied physics at the University of Adelaide, completing a PhD at Flinders University in laser physics in 1972. Rejecting a career in the sciences, Philip instead traveled to the Northern Territory to take up work with the Aboriginal land rights activist, Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji at Wave Hill. 

After the hand-back of land by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, Philip became a NT Parks and Wildlife ranger. A serious accident to his foot saw Philip return to university, graduating from Sydney University Medical School in 1988.

In 1996, Philip became the first physician in the world to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection under the short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory in 1996. Four of Philip’s terminally ill patients used this law to end their suffering before the law was overturned in March 1997 by the Australian Parliament.

Philip Nitschke presented this reading and Q&A at at Embiggen Books on Tuesday, 10th September 2013. Thanks to Warren of Embiggen Books and to Dr Nitschke for allowing the talk to be recorded. You can follow Embiggen Books at https://twitter.com/embiggenbooks and Dr Nitschke at https://twitter.com/philipnitschke

The March For Science is an international phenomenon — a stand for solidarity, for education, for inclusivity and for diversity in the field and for the importance of science to the world to be understood and promoted by not just scientists, but policy makers and the public.

Here are some vox pops and speeches from the rally that was held on the 22nd April, 2017, at Forrest Chase, Perth, Western Australia. Many thanks to all the organisers and the participants.

Following on from the topic of animal ethics, the world around us consists of many different kinds of natural elements, such as flora, minerals and waterways — all of which are influenced by human activity. The built environment can be of benefit to humanity, but to what extent should it influence or damage the biosphere?

One philosophical approach is that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose work proposes that the natural state of the world is genuine and harmonious, something that education and politics should reflect, with the innate goodness of the natural environment reflected in the self. This romantic approach can also be seen in the poetry of Wordsworth and the writings of Thoreau and Emerson. In more recent years, Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Rachael Carson’s “Silent Spring” and philosophers Paul Taylor, John Muir, Peter Vardy and Michael Smith, have written on how the rights of the planet are just as valid as human rights.

With increasing levels of mining, property development, clearance of forests, species loss, climate change and the growth of cities, how we should best consider the balance of the natural world with civilisation becomes a crucial part of ethical inquiry. How much should we give way to development and technological progress, at the risk of damaging the planet? 

While the moral status of animals have been a topic in philosophy since its early beginnings, it’s only become popular in the past hundred years or so to debate the ethical treatment of animals.

The treatment of animals as pets, as livestock, as creatures for testing and research are some examples of issues that have been discussed, with the treatment of non-human animals ranging from independence and autonomy, to completely subject to the will of humanity.

Philosophers and scientists such Darwin observed that animals differ ‘in degree and not in kind’, while utilitarian philosophers such as Bentham, Mill and Singer argue that we have relationships that require a minimisation of harm and unnecessary suffering of animals. There is also a Kantian perspective that we have a duty to animals and should not use them exclusively for human’s purposes. 

While the development of the rights of animals in philosophical thought is fairly recent, there are a number of resources, such as animals in industry and experimentation, that draw upon ethical theories.

This is one of a handful of books I keep with me as additional source material for discussions and inspiration, and not just for the pre-teen to teenage class.

The Philosophy Gym: 25 Short Adventures in Thinking features short chapters on key questions, peppered with interesting dialogues in a “community of inquiry” vein. By unpacking the ideas, proposing questions and introducing key thinkers and schools of thought, this is an extremely accessible and useful book when stuck for ideas for livening up a topic.

The informal style doesn’t mean that it lacks in detail — in fact, often the questioning of assumptions that are built up are the most useful elements and can provide further food for thought. Chapters are also linked to other chapters for further reading; each chapter is listed as “warm up”, “moderate” or “more challenging”. As an introductory text to several key ideas and concepts, it’s both a useful resource and a fun, accessible read.

Some example chapters: Can We Have Morality without God and Religion? Is Creationism Scientific? Why Expect the Sun to Rise Tomorrow? What Is Knowledge? Should You Be Eating That?

Further Resources:

Stephen Law’s official college page
Blogs at Stephen Law and Believing Bullshit
Interview on another text, The Philosophy of Christmas

Today’s episode is a revision of the topics on resources involving ethics — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. 

Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading to www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Further Resources:

Ethics and Writing — The Conversation

Answering Ethical Questions

Approaching the Ethics Essay

While John Stuart Mill lived through times where England was at war, where dictators and revolution existed — his primary concern was something called the “tyranny of the majority”, an issue that greatly informed this public servant and political economist’s philosophy.

He is most known for taking on the lessons of an earlier philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, on Utilitarianism — where “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” was proposed as the guiding force as to whether an act was moral— and further refining it in works such as On Liberty.

Mill defends freedom of thought and expression, and proposes that society should only limit the liberty of the individual in order to prevent harm to another. This harm principle does not require belief in a deity, as in the ethics of Kant.

Mill also encouraged social progress and individualism though discussing ideas and opinions, as he believed that truths should be subject to critical review. He was also one of the first philosophers to encourage the rights of women in his writing, through the influence on his work by his wife, Harriet Taylor.