The Morality of Everyday Things: An Everyday Philosophy Podcast

Can you break a promise if it was an unreasonable one to make?

In this episode, Jake and Ant go in depth, discussing several philosophical frameworks and what they have to say about promises. Using realistic (and some less realistic) examples of promises, they discuss what various philosophers would have to say about them, as well as giving their own two cents. They discuss duty, trust, and how our actions support or erode institutions we all depend on.

Should you keep a promise to someone who’ll never know if you do? Should you make a promise you know you can’t keep to make someone feel better? What even counts as a promise?

Want to create your own podcast?

Zencastr is an all in one podcast creation studio that you can access right from your browser, no installations needed. Just get on the site and send a link to your guests and you can get started, recording studio quality audio, and now video too.

Automatic post-production makes finalising your podcast easy, all guests have their own audio channels to make editing a breeze, and all files are stored on the cloud for easy access and peace of mind.

Click this link to get started with 30% off your subscription for your first 3 months.

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.

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

Is it justifiable to blatantly break one of the most basic rules of the road?

In this episode, Jake and Ant discuss the morality of skipping red lights on a bike. They begin by chatting about unexpected outcomes of laws that are designed to improve safety and the possibility that running reds is actually safer for cyclists. They discuss the “Reverse Peltzman effect'' and how by making a behaviour more risky, people compensate by being more careful, which may be enough to outweigh the increased risk.

They also talk about whether the laws applied to cyclists on the road are justified, the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, as well as musing about what changes may be beneficial for road safety.

Thanks so much to the people who've left reviews! We read them all and the words of encouragement mean the world to us. If you could spare the time, leaving a review on Apple Podcasts would help us a lot. If you don't have Apple Podcasts, feel free to rate using whatever service you use. 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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of the Western abandonment of Afghanistan after decades of support.

We begin by chatting about some necessary context on the history of Afghanistan, both cold war era and post 9/11. Ultimately, we discuss the limits of one person's moral agency (can the president be personally blamed? Was there any winning decision to be made?), when it may be just to invade or 'nation-build' and the limits of respecting sovereignity and self-determination. Specifically, we also discuss the concept of a 'just war' and Mill's self help test in the context of war. Factcheck timeline here: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

What are your thoughts, should Biden have put his foot down and managed the pull out differently, or even cancelled it? Do let us know and chat to us on our facebook page, insta or email [email protected].

Thanks to the Dream Factory in Shoreditch, our new studio.

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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of murdering a murderer.

We begin by chatting about the point of punishment - if we can't work out a justified aim of punishment, it's certainly hard to ever justify any punishment! We discuss the '5 theories of punishment' and their historical context (from Kant, to Bentham, to Michel Foucault). Following this, we discuss the particular issues around death (the sanctity of life and most importantly the irreversibility of death)!

We also consider some side-questions: should 'life-in-prisoners' have the option to opt for death row? Suicide rates are 4x higher in prison after all. Is there any amount of restitution that could serve justice, if the wrong-doer doesn't also suffer? What are the proportional limits of 'an eye for an eye'?

What are your thoughts, should we abolish the death penalty once and for all? Do let us know and chat to us on our facebook group :)

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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of giving cold hard cash to street beggars (who we typically assume are homeless).

We begin by exploring a bit around how people end up in the situation of begging for cash and the difference between giving people cash vs giving them goods and services. We go on to examine the tradeoffs between your own satisfaction and the actual consequences of your giving cash to someone who's potentially unstable; what are the limits of your moral agency for the actions of others? Also, do we demonize consumption of drugs and alcohol in a group who have perhaps the most reason to search for escape? If homeless charities insist on treating sober people, but substance abuse is an overwhelming problem in this group, then have we structure our charitable infrastructure well to deal with this issue? What are the reasonable limits of our generosity - if £1, why not £2? If £2 why not £5?

What is your go-to in this everyday situation? Do let us know and chat to us on our facebook group :)

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

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!

Thanks for that, Ant ^^

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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of having children in the context of climate change. Is it ok to birth a child into a doomed circumstance...is this circumstance quite so doomed...even if it wasn't, is it maybe wrong to birth someone without their permission anyway?

This discussion begins by exploring moral considerations around having children with 2 key perspectives, particularly: the way that you may be wronging a baby itself by birthing it, either by dooming it to a struggle with the woes of life (if that's how you view life) or the struggles of climate change, or the way you may be wronging society more widely. After an exploration in this regard we focus more on the practicalities of climate change: is human life actually doomed and is that question relevant? Can we weigh human happiness against humans having a place to live? Can we realistically ask people to not have children and what might a policy look like?

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

A huge shoutout to listener Peter Maxwell who was so sick of our awful sound mastering, he messaged and offered to help us with it by salvaging what was possible from our amateurly recorded files.

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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of pet care. Is it ok to keep any sentient living being as property, free to be made infertile if their incessant humping annoys us and even to be put down if they become an inconvenience or minor danger.

Part of this discussion will feel familiar from our vegan/vegetarianism episode (how do we compare animal vs human rights?), but the fundamental question is how do we square the very common stance of being anti-livestock/vegan but pro-pets? We do care about our pets, but we also violate what may very reasonably be their rights as sentient creatures in the interest of our enjoyment - and their being happy with the arrangement may not necessarily get us off the hook, just as it doesn't solve the 'benevolent slave owner' argument. Also, to what extent does keeping pets enable negligient or non-benevolent pet owners to cause suffering, and can we even agree what counts as negligient - by some accounts keeping a dog in an inner city apartment is not fair, for example.

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

In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of art. Well, a very small sub-section, enjoying the works of artists who are themselves immoral. In considering this, we consider the difference between art and things that are simply visually/audibly pleasing and how the context of art can (or should) affect how we appreciate it.Key considerations include whether the 'problematic' context of the artist is literally part of their work, a heavy influence or driver of the work, or totally separate. We also consider whether the issue is consequential, i.e. we should withold our attention to financially harm such artists, or diminish their reputation, or whether it's more to satisfy a personal moral qualm.Please do leave a review on your podcast platform, it really helps us immensely.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 *excuse minor echo in audio*

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

In this episode (another guest-episode digression from our usual format, which we'll return to next episode), Jake and Ant look at whether entrepreneurship can be a force for good, with Chris and Chris from the Beyond Binary Thinking podcast. We discuss the difference between entrepreneurship en masse and large tech companies, the role of finance (and over-financialization) in business and whether shifting ownership can help resolve some of these issues.

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