In part II of this discussion with philosopher Naomi Zack, Naomi and I finish working through some of my students' questions about her arguments against identity politics. Here are all the things we cover:

Min 2: Question: “Don’t universal policies face pushback too?”

Min 5:10: How social security overcomes the “spite factor.”

Min 6:16: Affirmative action.

Min 10:45: Question: "Isn’t pushback an inevitable part of moving forward? We’ve always seen pushback whenever we’ve made progress as a country.”

Min 16:33: Question: “Doesn’t ‘solving problems’ oversimplifying the purpose of the government? Shouldn’t the maintenance of justice and equal treatment be part of the purpose of the government too?

Min 26:30: Question:“Doesn’t avoiding pushback cede too much to racism? Does your view make white appeasement too morally and pragmatically important.”

Min 28:57: Changing cultural views first. “The government is the last step.”

Min 31:20: Joel expresses hope for shifting views on reparations.

Philosopher Naomi Zack is critical of identity politics––it does not belong in the government, or so she argues. My students raised a bunch of questions and criticisms of her view. This episode is part I of a discussion with Naomi Zack where we chat through my students' questions and criticisms. Here's the content:

Min 3:30 What are you thinking about identity politics right now?

Min 4: “The personal is political” became “the political is personal.”

Min 5: The culture wars encroached on politics

Min 8:30: why the politicization of identity and culture wars is dangerous

Min 10:20: how did you first get interested in identity politics?

Min 11: how “we all have a race” opened the door to oppressors asserting their identity

Min 13: why there was a need for identity politics after WWII.

Min 15:15: identity politics worked well as a “social movement” leading to anti-discrimination law.

Min 16:10: the problem is an “all out war of identities”

Min 18:30: the purpose of government is to solve problems

Min 20:30: “It’s not just the Right that’s problematic” (Biden: “save the soul of America”).

Min 23:30: What are your views on reparations?

Min 28:50: Does protest work? Does protest disrupt the purpose of the government?

Are there moral facts? Is morality simply a useful fiction? Philosopher Russ Shafer-Landau joins me in this episode to talk through some of the questions students have about morality...specifically, moral realism and moral nihilism. My students wanted to know why Russ is a moral realist (someone who believes that moral facts are real and objectively authoritative). They also wanted to know whether he would be a fictionalist or an abolitionist were he a moral nihilist. There's a lot of good content here! Enjoy. 

Suppose someone says, "whatever makes you happy is morally ok to do." How would you go about evaluating that claim? In this episode, I introduce a simple method for evaluating philosophical and ethical claims: the method of counterexamples. 

Cancel culture. Now that's a hot button issue! What are the virtues of cancel culture? Vices? Should we participate in it? My ethics class recently explored some of these questions. In specific, we looked at Mary Beth Willard's arguments from her upcoming book, Why It's Ok to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists. This episode covers the details. Whatever you think about cancel culture, don't cancel this podcast. Subscribe!

Philosopher Naomi Zack has an argument for thinking that Identity politics should be left out of politics. In this episode, I explore her back-lash argument and introduce her proposed solution for addressing racial inequality. The short story: it's not identity politics. Rather, the way forward is through universal policy (policy that benefits all). This way, regressives lose too much by pushing back, leaving us with a sustainable path forward and a less dysfunctional government.  

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt thinks that inequality is not what matters. Deprivation matters. If everyone is able to live a sufficiently good and secure life, it does not matter that some some have more than others. This is a view called "sufficientarianism." In this episode, I explore two arguments for sufficientarianism and a possible response. Song: "Amour," by kickhat.

In this episode I talk about three kinds of equality: formal equality, equality of opportunity, and outcome equality. Then, I distinguish between three answers to the question, "when, if ever, is inequality morally objectionable?" Some argue that inequalities can be objectionable in three ways: due to their (a) causes, (b) consequences, or (c) because they are inherently objectionable.  Enjoy! Song: "Amour," by kickhat.

Peter Singer raises one of the most challenging objections to living an affluent, luxurious lifestyle in a world filled with poverty. In this episode, I review his famous pond argument and consider a few typical objections. To consider how you can make a difference in the world with just a modest donation, visit Givewell.org where you can explore a list of charities (each tested for effectiveness). Song: "Amour," by kickhat.

When it comes to reparations for African Americans, how would that go? What policies and actions would be taken? In this review, I remind you of Darity and Mullen's recommendations. I forget to talk about apology and acknowledgment, so throw that in there. Mostly, this short episode focuses on their recommendations for economic repair.