More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/repugnant-markets.

We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France's attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Nobel-laureate economist Alvin Roth, author of "Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design."

458: Repugnant Markets – Should Everything Be For Sale?

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/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.

538: Could Robots Be Persons?

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mind-sharing.

Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind sharers, unconsciously shaping our behavior to be understood by others? How do we change or exaggerate our actions when others are present? And how can we use these insights to communicate better with our loved ones? Josh and Ray share their mind(s) with Julian Jara-Ettinger, Director of the Computational Social Cognition Lab at Yale University.

586: Mind Sharing

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/margaret-cavendish.

Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, what was so radical about Cavendish's views? Why did she think all matter, even rocks, was at least partially rational? And how did she anticipate the term "epistemic injustice" 400 years before it was coined? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Margaret Cavendish with Karen Detlefsen from the University of Pennsylvania, co-editor of "The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy."

458: Repugnant Markets – Should Everything Be For Sale?

Download our free app to listen on your phone