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.

The post EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.

The post EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.

The post EP17: Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First? (Smilansky’s Designer Ethics) Ft. Ben Burgis appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.

The post EP16: Should Philosophers Stay Out Of Politics? (On van der Vossen’s Defence of The Ivory Tower) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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!

The post EP15: Is Zoophilia Morally Permissible? (On Bensto’s Defence of Zoophilia) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.

The post EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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.

Benatar’s answer is as edgy as it gets. No, there’s no meaning to life, and no matter how much we try to soothe ourselves, this is a terrible state of affairs. Though Benatar is a pessimist, he admits that human lives can have social or personal meaning, but on a cosmic scale we are totally insignificant.

On this episode, we debate whether Benatar’s idea of “cosmic meaning” even makes sense. We also consider the way our own personal upbringings might influence the way we take up this question.

The post EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In ethnography there has been a long-standing tradition to prioritize the interests of research participants through a scholar-informant solidarity. This week we ask, how far should this scholar-informant solidarity go in cases where the research participants are dangerous or otherwise unsavoury?

In this episode, we interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about this question and his own work that entails a “deep hanging out” with his research subjects. As Teitelbaum describes them, “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”.

This week we read “Collaborating with the Radical Right: Scholar-Informant Solidarity and the Case for an Immoral Anthropology“. In it, Teitelbaum defends his use of scholar-informant solidarity with the far right. Additionally, the article includes a series of responses to Teitelbaum’s argument from a collection of leading scholars in the field.

Matt and Victor also interviewed Teitelbaum on PlasticPills about his book on Steve Bannon and Traditionalism called War for Eternity. You can find that interview here.

The post EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

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. He likens post-truth to a kind of epistemic democratization that we should embrace.

We read the third chapter from Steve Fuller’s book, Post Truth: Knowledge as Power Game. We also read three short essays that build on this debate. You can find those here, here, and here.

In the episode, we ask:

The post EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

This week we have one of our first encounters with the Academic Edgelord final boss, Stephan Kershnar. We enter the Kershnar-sphere by looking at his argument against equality of opportunity. For this edgelord — who is author of papers on adult-child sex, slavery, and more — its actually one of his milder takes. It’s from Why Equality of Opportunity is not a Valuable Goal, in the Journal of Applied Philosophy.

We also read a response in the same journal from John O’Dea. We’ll look at Kershnar’s case, and ask what it misses about good equality of opportunity arguments. Plus: what exactly is he doing? We discuss whether Kershnar is a kind of useful gadfly, a dishonest ideologue, or just a petulant troll.

The post EP10: Is Equality of Opportunity Not Valuable? (On Stephan Kershnar’s Attack on Equality of Opportunity) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.