In this episode I spoke to Jason Brennan, philosopher at Georgetown University, likely best known for the provocatively titled Against Democracy. We discuss many topics, including fallibility, moral judgment, and what we owe each other across deep disagreement. We cover his case against democracy, his work on when bad beliefs should disqualify someone from friendship, and the moral risks of doing moral philosophy. We also discuss his forthcoming book Glass Houses, which defends grace, or the withholding of moral judgement against others as a practical response to our own unreliability as moral judges. Relevant Links:Brennan, “Friendship and Blackballing for Bad Beliefs” Brennan & Freiman, “Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk” Brennan, Glass Houses Deeyah Khan documentary The Enemies Project The post EP32: Should We Blackball People With Immoral Views? (Interview With Jason Brennan) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

After a long hiatus, we are back! This time Victor talks with Alex Guerrero about his recent book, Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections. According to Guerrero, elections systematically reward ambition, status-seeking, and elite competition rather than good democratic judgment. This, he argues justifies replacing electoral legislatures with randomly selected single-issue legislative lotteries, or SILLs. We discuss the project’s main influences, the core case for replacing elections in this way, and some of the main objections against the idea. If you are inspired by the idea of lottocracy or just want to learn more, please visit lottocracy.org Alex Guerrero is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. The post EP31: Should Random People Rule Us? (Interview With Alex Guerrero on Lottocracy) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Critics like Shoshana Zuboff call Big Tech a parasitic system of control—but philosopher Peter Königs thinks that story is overblown. His 2024 Philosophy & Technology paper argues that the panic around “surveillance capitalism” exaggerates its harms and ignores its benefits. We discuss his case that targeted ads aren’t especially manipulative, that social media’s political and mental-health effects are far less dire than claimed, and that data collection doesn’t necessarily destroy privacy or freedom. Is Königs offering a reasonable correction to digital-age hysteria, or just apologizing for the algorithms that rule us? To help answer this, we are joined by STS scholar Michelle Charette The post EP30: Is Surveillance Capitalism Really That Bad? (On Königs “In Defense of ‘Surveillance Capitalism”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we read “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation”, by Stephen Kershnar and Nathan Bray. In it, they argue that cultural appropriation is neither morally wrong nor socially harmful. They reject claims that it constitutes theft, disrespect, or oppression, insisting that no one owns cultural ideas or symbols and that cultural mixing often benefits everyone. In this episode, we debate whether a property-rights-based argument for it holds up, whether offense and inequality matter morally, and if there are cases where cultural appropriation really is wrong. Ultimately, we agree that in cases when it seems bad, it’s usually bad for reasons other than the fact of it’s cultural appropriation. The post EP29: Is Cultural Appropriation Really That Bad? (On Kershnar and Brey’s “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Is moderation just fence-sitting, or is it a forgotten virtue? In this episode, we sit down with philosopher Marcus Arvan to discuss his new book Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate. We dig into why radicals often steal the spotlight, how moral certainty can slip into fanaticism, and why history may vindicate moderates more than we think. We also debate Arvan on the moral permissibility of centrism. Marcus also runs the Philosophers’ Cacoon, a philosophy blog dedicated to early career philosophers. Check it out here. The post EP28: Is it Okay to be a Moderate? (On Marcus Arvan’s “Why it’s OK to Be a Moderate”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we explore a very provocative argument in contemporary animal ethics: the moral defense of violent direct action to protect animals. The pseudonymous philosopher Ivar Hardman challenges both mainstream liberal ethics and the cautious pacifism of figures like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. His essay, “In Defense of Direct Action”, argues that it is prima facie morally permissible, in some cases even required, for individuals to use coercion, including violence and property destruction, to prevent the serious and wrongful harm of animals. Drawing on common sense morality, Hardman builds a case for treating militant animal rights activists not as moral outliers, but as people following ordinary moral principles to their logical conclusion. We explore the paper’s key claims, how it situates itself against animal ethics orthodoxy, and what it implies for the legitimacy of groups like the Animal Liberation Front. If you want to offset your meat consumption (as mentioned by Ethan in the episode), check out FarmKind Check out Stephan Kershnar’s controversial publication record (we mentioned at the end of the episode). https://philpeople.org/profiles/stephen-kershnar The post EP27: Should We Use Violence To Protect Animals? (On Ivar Hardman’s “In Defence of Direct Action”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we delve into Emily Tilton and Briana Toole’s forthcoming chapter, “Standpoint Epistemology and the Epistemology of Deference,” featured in the Blackwell Companion to Epistemology. We are joined by two guests: Michelle Charette, who recently completed her PhD in Science and Technology Studies, and John Atytalla, who holds a PhD in Philosophy.​ Tilton and Toole critically examine the prevailing trend of epistemic deference – where individuals are encouraged to accept the judgments of marginalized groups as their own. While acknowledging the importance of recognizing marginalized perspectives, they argue that habitual deference can inadvertently hinder the socially dominant from cultivating essential epistemic skills, such as empathy and critical inquiry. They advocate for an epistemic framework centered on inclusion and active engagement rather than passive deference. We had a mixture of audio setups in this episode, so there are a couple of audio anomalies. Feature Image from Frits Ahlefeldt The post EP26: Should We Defer To Marginalized Perspectives? (On Tilton and Toole’s Epistemology of Deference) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we dive into Matt McManus’ The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism and ask whether the fusion of liberalism and socialism makes sense – or if it’s just a contradiction in terms. McManus argues that liberal values like individual rights and democracy can be reconciled with socialist commitments to economic justice. But not everyone buys it. Critics from the Marxist left see liberalism as a bourgeois ideology that ultimately serves capitalist interests, making true socialism impossible within its framework. Meanwhile, libertarians argue that socialism is inherently coercive and incompatible with liberal freedoms. Even within mainstream liberal thought, there’s skepticism about how much economic redistribution is too much before it undermines individual autonomy and market efficiency. Is there a viable middle path, or is liberal socialism just wishful thinking? Let’s find out. The post EP25: Is Liberal Socialism an Oxymoron? (On Matt McManus’ Liberal Socialism) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we read Kieran Healy’s provocatively titled essay, “F**k Nuance,” where he argues that an overemphasis on nuance can hinder the development of effective sociological theory. He argues that piling on distinctions can make theories more convoluted without making them more useful. Instead of sharpening insight, excessive nuance can turn sociology into an endless exercise in hair-splitting—good for showing off, bad for explaining the world. We are joined by Science and Technology Studies PhD candidate Michelle Charette to debate the merits of Healy’s arguments. The post EP24: Do We Need Nuanced Academic Theories (On Kieran Healy’s Article “F**k Nuance”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

On this episode, we return for a sequel to EP19’s topic: the potential immorality of monogamy. On that episode, we discussed Harry Chalmers’ paper “Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?” This time, we interview the man himself to see where our discussion might have gone wrong the first time around. We also discuss “Monogamy Unredeemed”, Harry’s defence of his original article, responding to a response paper from Kyle York. Subscribe to Harry’s substack here The post EP23: Is Monogamy Immoral? (EP19 follow-up Feat. Harry Chalmers) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.