You're walking past a shallow pond and a child is drowning. You could save them at minimal cost to yourself. Should you?

In 1972, philosopher Peter Singer asked exactly that question — and used it to argue that we are all morally obligated to give far more than we do. That argument gave birth to one of the most influential moral movements of our time: Effective Altruism.

In this episode, Hamza sits down with philosopher David Edmonds to follow the argument from Singer's drowning child all the way to the rise and collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried.

They discuss:

— Why some charities are genuinely 1000x more effective than others

— The trolley problem and what it reveals about our moral intuitions

— Whether moral saints exist and whether we'd even want them to

— Derek Parfit's glass bottle and the ethics of future generations

— What SBF's collapse means for the Effective Altruism movement

— The role of risk and uncertainty in moral theorizing

David Edmonds is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University. With Nigel Warburton he co-founded Philosophy Bites — one of the most listened-to philosophy podcasts in the world with over 49 million downloads. His latest book is Death in a Shallow Pond (2025).

🎥 Youtube: https://youtu.be/ymK8WuQdGms?is=lIHzI7ybfCCbf_4t

📖 Death in a Shallow Pond: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Shallow-Pond-Philosopher-Strangers/dp/0691254028

🌐 Phlexible Philosophy: https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com

On the 27th of September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a Professor at Palo Alto University, appeared in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to testify against Brett Kavanaugh, who was at the time a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, for sexually assaulting her at a high school party they both attended thirty-six years earlier.

Visibly shaken, she went on to describe how Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, removed her clothes, and covered her mouth as she tried to scream: “It was hard for me to breathe,” she told the Committee, “and I thought that Brett was going to accidentally kill me.”

Not long after, Kavanaugh submitted a letter to the Committee calling her testimony nothing but a “smear” and affirming that he would “not be intimidated into withdrawing from the process”. Despite public outrage towards this trial, Kavanagh was still confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow victory of 50 – 48, and President Trump was quick to offer his sympathy: “What they put him through – the Democrats – over the last few weeks, it’s horrible. If you look at what he’s had to endure – horrible. False – statements. It doesn’t get any worse. But the beautiful thing is he is now in, and he’s going to be there for a long time.”

The interesting thing about this case is that both sides claim to be the victim: Mrs. Ford claims she is a victim of sexual assault, while Mr. Kavanaugh claims he is a victim of a defamatory smear campaign. But are these claims to victimhood equally valid? And how can we adjudicate between the two to determine who the real victim is?

Hamza King sits down with Lilie Chouliaraki to discuss these questions. Lilie is a Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of Wronged: The Weaponization of Victimhood (2024).

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/people/lilie-chouliaraki

➡️ Wronged: The Weaponisation of Victimhood (2024): https://cup.columbia.edu/book/wronged/9780231550239/

#philosophy #podcast #ethics

0:00 - Introduction

2:27 - What got you interested in victimhood?

6:01 - Why did you decide to write this book?

7:04 - How has victimhood been understood throughout history?

11:10 - How is victimhood portrayed in the film Forrest Gump?

17:18 - Did reverse victimhood play a role in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade in June 2022?

21:40 - What is the difference between vulnerability can victimhood?

28:25 - How can we evaluate the legitimacy of claims to victimhood?

33:03 - Who is the real victim: Christine Blasey Ford or Brett Kavanaugh?

37:40 - Outro

The Rwandan Genocide was one of the most horrific events of the twentieth century. After decades of unrest between Rwanda’s two biggest tribes, the Tutsi’s and the Hutu’s, civil war finally broke out on the 7th of April 1994, and over the next thirty days, 800,000 people were killed in cold blood, while the world stood back and watched.

UN forces were in Rwanda at the time, but they were ordered not to intervene, and many withdrew within the first few weeks of fighting. Kofi Annan, Head of Peacekeeping at the UN during the genocide, later said: “All of us must bitterly regret that we did not do more to prevent it. On behalf of the United Nations, I acknowledge this failure and express my deep recourse”.

This acknowledgement that the world should have done more to end the genocide led to the development of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine, which forms the main political framework for deliberating about humanitarian intervention. But do states ever have a responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens in other states? And what moral considerations need to be taken into account when doing so?

Hamza King sits down with Jonathan Parry to discuss these questions. Jonathan is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of 'The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction' (2025).

➡️ Jonathan Parry (LSE): https://jonathan-parry.weebly.com/

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/cpnss/people/jonathan-parry

➡️ The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction (2025): https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethics-of-Humanitarian-Intervention-An-Introduction/Parry/p/book/9781138082342

Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Widely considered to be the father of modern science, Popper introduced the principle of falsificationism which states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must have a hypothesis which is falsifiable, or capable of being disproven. A theory with a hypothesis which cannot be disproven, like the belief that God created the universe in seven days, is not rightly understood to be a scientific theory.

Popper turned his attention to political philosophy during the Second World War, culminating in the publication of The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945, where Popper offered a defence of liberal values, famously stating that “We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Jason McKenzie Alexander, who has spent several decades writing on the philosophy of science, has followed in Popper’s footsteps and turned his attention to political philosophy in his latest book, The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves (2024). Jason warns that there has been an inversion of values across Western societies, where many now view the Open Society as a threat, rather than something to be celebrated, and argues that we must revise and reinvigorate our understanding of the Open Society, making it relevant to the problems we face in the twenty-first century.

➡️ The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves: press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/m/10.31389/lsepress.ose/ (LSE Press)

➡️ J. McKenzie Alexander: jmckalex.org/home/Home.php (J. McKenzie Alexander's Home Page)

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/cpnss/people/Jason-McKenzie-Alexander

Sheffield was once the steel-making capital of the world. During the First Industrial Revolution, almost half of the steel used in Europe was produced in Sheffield; and during both World Wars, the city became a bombing target because of the central role it played in arming the British military. This rich steel-making tradition began to decline under Margaret Thatcher. In the 1980s, market forces caused several of Sheffield’s steel works to close and the British steel industry was ultimately privatised. Sheffield – once known as the Steel City – has never fully recovered; and

South Yorkshire is now the poorest region in England. South Yorkshire is not an isolated case. In middle-income countries across the world, time and resources are being invested into capital cities and regions around them, at the expense of rural and coastal regions located further away from the capital. These left behind regions are in dire need of development.

Hamza King sits down with Sir Paul Collier to discuss economics for neglected places. Paul is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, and a Director at the International Growth Centre.

Paul is the author of 'Left Behind: A New Economics for Neglected Places' (2024). Paul has authored several other book, including 'The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it' (2007) and 'The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties' (2018).

Subscribe for an extended interview 👇

The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast

The phrase ‘glass ceiling’ was coined by the American writer and management consultant, Marilyn Loden, to describe the barriers preventing women from progressing to senior positions in their careers. The sociologists Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison have introduced the phrase ‘class ceiling’ to describe the barriers preventing those from working-class backgrounds from progressing in their careers. In their book, The Class Ceiling: Why it pays to be privileged, Friedman and Laurison have found that even when those from working-class backgrounds making it into prestigious jobs, they earn around 16% less than their colleagues from more privileged backgrounds. So why is this the case? And what can be done to shatter the glass ceiling?

Hamza King sits down with Sam Friedman to discuss social class. Sam is a Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of 'The Class Ceiling: Why it pays to be privileged' (2019). Sam has a new book coming out in September with Aaron Reeves called ‘Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite?’ (2024).

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast

A protection gap exists under international law for those displacement by the impacts of climate change. The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1988 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement offer no protection to those facing famine in Ethiopia, flooding in Pakistan, or the threat of ‘state extinction’ in Tuvalu. The idea of a climate refugee treaty has been suggested as a way of filling this protection gap, by outlining a set of rights for those displaced by the impacts of climate change. But is a climate refugee treaty the best way to manage those displaced by the impacts of climate change?

Hamza King sits down with Jamie Draper to discuss climate displacement. Jamie is an Assistant Professor of Political Philosophy at Utrecht University and author of ‘Climate Displacement’ (2023).

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast.

The laws which govern war do not reflect our moral intuitions about what types of behaviour are permissible when fighting wars. In some cases, morality is more relaxed than the law: the killing of noncombatants is almost never justified under international law, while many just war theorists believe it can be justified if these noncombatants pose a credible threat. In other cases, the law is more relaxed than morality: the killing of combatants is justified even if one is fighting for the unjust side under international law, while many just war theorists believe the killing of combatants is only justified if one if fighting for the just side. Should there be greater convergence between law and morality?

Hamza King sits down with Victor Tadros to discuss individual ethics in war. Victor is a Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory at the University of Warwick, and author of 'To Do, To Die, To Reason Why: Individual Ethics in War' (2020)

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️ The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast

We are living in a new age of work, where many of the tasks which once required a human touch, can now be done by AI systems. Imagine we one day reach a point where all human activities can be carried out by AI, and we are no longer the best problem-solvers on the planet. Would this be a utopian world, or a dystopian world?

Hamza King sits down with John Danaher to imagine what a world world without work would be like. John is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Galway, and author of 'Automation & Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World Without Work (2019)'. John runs a blog and podcast called 'Philosophical Disquisitions'.

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️ The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast.

We live in an age of space travel. Billionaires and governments are already fighting for resources on the Moon and Mars, and academics are racing to develop ethical frameworks that can guide space policy and practice. Neil Armstrong believed space travel to be a symbol of human progress. Gil Scott-Heron believed space travel to be a symbol of global inequality. Who is right (or are they both right)?

Hamza King sits down with Tony Milligan to discuss some of the ethical problems posed by space exploration. Tony is a Senior Researcher in the Philosophy of Ethics at King's College London who is currently working on the Cosmological Visionaries Project, which explores what global initiatives of the future will look like. Tony is author of ‘The Ethics of Space Exploitation: Nobody Owns the Moon' (2015).

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast.