The Morality of Everyday Things: An Everyday Philosophy Podcast

The first in a two-parter where we discuss taxes and specifically inheritance tax. The series explores why taxes make sense at all, and then apply this thinking to inheritance tax - both whether it meets the ideological/moral aims we have for taxes more generally, and indeed whether they seem to actually effectively meet their intended aims!

In this episode, we focus a lot on the point of taxes in general and break it down into 3 points: supporting public goods that it wouldn't make sense to privately provide, nudging behaviour and internalizing externalities and finally support general redistribution of wealth. It makes a great pre-cursor to any future tax episodes!

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon, go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The second in a two-parter where we discuss whether landlords are evil. In a world where more and more urban centers in the western world are becoming unlivably expensive, should we be permitting people to treat homes as investment assets and sources of incomes? We also specifically discuss this in the context of 'leverage', which is basically when you use a mortgage to multiply your gains and losses.

In this episode, we discuss whether asset ownership in general should be a means of generating returns with specific reference to Rawls and Piketty. After some back and forth on this, we look at the example set out by some other countries around the world with different living situations which haven't led to the same issues and also some discussion of potential policy solutions, and of course whether it is wrong for landlords to continue to partake in the market given the crisis.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon, go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first in a two-parter where we discuss whether landlords are evil. In a world where more and more urban centers in the western world are becoming unlivably expensive, should we be permitting people to treat homes as investment assets and sources of incomes? We also specifically discuss this in the context of 'leverage', which is basically when you use a mortgage to multiply your gains and losses.

In this episode, we give some very wide context on the housing crisis, what's driving it etc, and discuss generally around generating returns from assets, speculation versus true investment and reference to classic libertarian arguments and specific consideration given to when an asset class is something we truly need.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

REPLAY - in light of the queen's death and power transfering to Charles III, whilst we offer our condolensces it's more pertinent than ever to ask during these lavish ceremonies and high air-time events...should we even be maintaining our royal families? Here's a replay of our old episode, previously titled 'should we abolish the monarchy?'

Previous description:

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of abolishing the monarchic institutions that are present in the UK and several other EU countries (but really focusing on the UK as a specific example).

The key arguments discussed and considered are:

1 - democracy, 2 - elitism, 3 - corruption/abuse of power, 4 - history & tradition, 5 - entertainment, 6 - soft power, 7 - the practical nuisance of disbanding the royals.

Ant is writing this and I maintain that it's a grossly inequitable institution that doesn't much contribute cash beyond what would be achieved regardless of their maintenance (not that money would even be a good justification anyway)...but hey, listen to the whole pod and form your own opinion!

As always, reviews really help us, please follow and review on your podcast platform of choice and contact us on your social media of choice. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The second in a two-parter where we discuss whether luxury goods are immoral. In a true return to form, this is a specific argument we have literally had over the office lunch table, originating from Ant's throwaway statement that he "doesn't get the point of jewellery" and "thinks it's ridiculously wasteful". In order to dissect whether luxuries are immoral, we first break down what exactly counts as a luxury, and secondly explore what exactly would make them immoral.

In this episode, it's all about discussing the opportunity cost of money spent on things that aren't strictly needed. Particularly, this comes through the lens of our last episode where we discuss luxuries of 2 sorts, expensive but perhaps 'good value' and offering some valid sort of self-esteem/self actualisation benefit within Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or another sort where it's frivolous and perhaps the user derives self esteem, but we may question whether that's a legitimate sort of esteem. We then particularly frame this morally considering the ideas of Peter Singer (i.e. all money you spend could be used to save lives, how should that affect your decision making?) vs Susan Wolf (i.e. not everything is about optimizing moral outcomes, it would create a sad and dreary life where we could not pursue anything of what makes the human experience so rich).

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first in a two-parter where we discuss whether luxury goods are immoral. In a true return to form, this is a specific argument we have literally had over the office lunch table, originating from Ant's throwaway statement that he "doesn't get the point of jewellery" and "thinks it's ridiculously wasteful". In order to dissect whether luxuries are immoral, we first break down what exactly counts as a luxury, and secondly explore what exactly would make them immoral.

In this episode, it's all about discussing what luxuries even are. We begin with some general and economic definitions, and then get into what makes something feel like a luxury, beyond some sterile definitions. It all comes down to what is and isn't necessary, and we come up with 2 sub-sets of luxuries to consider: things that are expensive and not necessary, but at least conceivably 'good value', and things that are expensive and not necessary, and are purely expensive as a means of conspicuous spending. We discuss Maslow's heirarchy of needs, distinguishing the difference between 'needs' for literal survival, and 'needs' for greater fulfillment, and several interesting examples of ostentatious spending.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription of just $1 goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel pretty great too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The third in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'When is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.

In this episode, we talk through some of the pros and cons, including the classic 'slippery slope' argument as a negative and the limits of our autonomy, specifically bodily autonomy, in the pros column. We draw on some of the philosophical concepts from last episode as well as religious context and actual context. Ultimately, Jake and Ant - in classic Jake and Ant fashion - end up largely agreeing that respect for autonomy wins out in contexts where one can't be considered impaired in their judgement, in a way that can't be altered (physical pain may be an unavoidable impairment on your normal judgement, when near death).

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The second in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'When is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.

In this episode, we talk through some typical moral/philosophical frameworks and what they may have to say about choosing, or being designated, to die. We romp through the typically out-there (by modern standards) ancient greek perspectives - you better be a 'good citizen', or else you're in trouble... - up to typical Kantian/utilitarian perspectives and also looking into "What we owe each other", which is much more than a pop framework that gets a mention in 'The Good Place'.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first in our series on euthanasia and assisted suicide - later named with the much more provocative title, 'when is it ok to put down a human being?'. In this series we explore how much control we (and other people) should have over our own death. This is primarily focused on circumstances where death is near and inevitable, and life/treatment is becoming pretty horrible in the interim, but we do broaden the discussion a little beyond these boundaries. As we clarify in the episode, agency creates an extremely important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but even the most liberal countries draw some lines on where agency is not enough to bring us to support someone's wish for death.

We'll begin the series by clarifying the terms (what's the difference between assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the active/passive forms of either) and a discussion of the current legal state of affairs across a range of countries - including how hard it is to do any of this in the UK and a little price check of a one-way trip to Switzerland.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. https://www.patreon.com/moedt.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Third in our series (of 3 episodes) exploring the intersection of morality and public policy; generally of the form 'should X be made legal?'. We'll be exploring both the ethical arguments and some of the high level data around key policy decisions surrounding commonly banned substances and activities. A core introductory theme (and one that's consistently touched on through the series) is when and how a governing power should behave independent of morality, i.e. with a greater focus and interest in outcomes and evidence, and when the banning or legalizing of substances are perhaps more important as value statements than as policy approaches who's outcomes we should study. Ultimately, this a spectrum and we will all have different views on this, even from issue to issue.

Today we consider the legality of gambling. Dissimilar to previous episodes, this is something that's is largely legal (though sports gambling is only recently permitted in the US). This means we can assess some of the impacts through studies and also that we consider the realistic efficacy of oversight bodies. In this case, the similar to the sex work, the moral imperative is protection of victims, but the victims are the purchasers rather than the sellers, and the particular difference on top of this is the awkward layering of the capitalist incentive to take advantage of those who gamble most - and are most addicted.

Support the show:

Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. If you’re a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too.

Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you’ll have our gratitude. Keep up to date with future episodes on our website here: https://moedt.substack.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices