Do we have moral duties to people who don’t yet exist? By grappling with puzzles like this, Parfit helped found population ethics, a branch of moral philosophy which considers how many people should exist and what we owe to people who are not yet born. We explore Parfit’s unsettling ideas about future generations – and why, decades later, we’re still grappling with the questions he raised. We also reflect on Parfit’s legacy and the key ingredients of his philosophy.

Followers of three moral theories, Kantianism, consequentialism and contractualism, have long argued against each other. Parfit believed they were actually converging – climbing the same mountain from different sides. In this episode, we outline his “Triple Theory”, a bold synthesis that suggests moral theories may agree more than we think. If true, this strengthens the case for objective morality and philosophical hope.

Can it be rational to prefer scratching your finger to preventing the destruction of the world? The tension between self-interest and morality has been described as the “profoundest problem in ethics”. But, as we discuss in this episode, Derek Parfit thought this was wrong. He argued for an objective rather than a subjective view of rationality, meaning it can be rational to act morally.

Is morality real or just a matter of opinion? And if real, what kind of reality? Derek Parfit argued that there are objective moral facts, akin to mathematical truths, and that we can discover them through reason. In this episode, we explain why he thought this – and why he worried that, if he were wrong, life might be meaningless.

Why should we help the badly-off? Often, we appeal to the idea of reducing inequality. In this episode, we discuss prioritarianism, Derek Parfit’s alternative theory which holds that we should give priority to the badly-off because helping them matters more morally. We also consider how Parfit’s views on personal identity help to defend prioritarianism from a major philosophical objection.

Are you the same person that you were ten years ago? Derek Parfit says maybe not. In this episode, we explore his radical view that personal identity isn’t about having the same body or soul, but rather about psychological continuity over time. This idea reshapes how we think about responsibility, distributive justice, and the self.

In this episode of Philosophy Exchange, Paula Keller (Cambridge) and Harry Daniels (Oxford) speak with Karl about what role political philosophy should give utopian thinking. Discussion points first include an introduction to what utopias are, and second an overview of how utopias are theorized within recent political philosophy. From here, the discussion turns to the practical question of how utopias can help with identifying and understanding unjust social circumstances.

In this third episode of the philosophy of psychiatry series we are interviewing Jodie Russel on her work on the mind-shaping view of psychiatry. Jodie explains how scientific disorder concepts inform and shape the way in which people perceive themselves and their disorder. We are also talking about some of the risks and benefits of mind-shaping in psychiatry. (Interviewers: Nina de Boer, Bennett Knox, and Johanna Sarisoy)

In this second episode of the philosophy of psychiatry series, we are interviewing Nina de Boer on her work on network models in psychiatry. Amongst other things, Nina explains the difference between network models of disorders and more traditional conceptions of disorders and we chat about benefits and challenges of network models. (Interviewers: Bennett Knox, Jodie Russel, Johanna Sarisoy).

This is the first episode of our series on philosophy of psychiatry, where PhD students chat about their work in Philosophy of Psychiatry and the intersection of philosophy and psychiatry. This episode focuses on Bennett Knox and their work on the (lack of) inclusion of pathologised individuals into the conceptualisation or definition of mental disorders.