More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mill-and-good-life.

John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill's Progressive Principles.

482: J.S. Mill and the Good Life

Bite-size episodes from the program that questions everything... except your intelligence. Learn more and access complete episodes at www.philosophytalk.org.

Education

Training

Language Courses

Higher Education

K-12

Educational Technology

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mary-wollstonecraft.

Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why did Wollstonecraft think that virtue is not truly possible unless we are all free? What did she think was key to the liberation of women? And what were her criticisms of the powerful institutions of her day, like the monarchy? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Mary Wollstonecraft with Sylvana Tomaselli from the University of Cambridge, author of "Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics."

Part of the "Wise Women," series generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

589: Mary Wollstonecraft

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/why-world-so-weird.

Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness.... whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a particle and a wave? Why is it that there are exactly as many fractions as there are whole numbers? Josh and Ray boggle at the strangeness of it all with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of "The Weirdness of the World."

588: Why Is the World So Weird?

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-would-kant-do.

German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his "Categorical Imperative," which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you would have everyone else do. But are Kant's rules really a good guide to action? Does he have anything to say about things people confront in everyday life, like friendship, manners, or gossip? Is Kant overly optimistic about our capacity to use reason and choose freely? Or was he right that rationality is the key to moral progress? Josh and Ray do right by Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, author of "Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life."

544: What Would Kant Do?

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/shakespeares-outsiders.

Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often disdained because of their race, religion, class, disability, or gender. So what do Shakespeare’s plays reveal about identity and status in his time? How might they shed light on who we include and who we exclude today? Could Shakespearian dramas have more in common with modern day soap operas than we think? Ray and guest-host Adrian Daub go inside with David Sterling Brown from Trinity College, author of "Shakespeare's White Others."

587: Shakespeare's Outsiders

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/could-robots-be-persons.

As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance.

482: J.S. Mill and the Good Life

Download our free app to listen on your phone