Philosophical Disquisitions

This audio essay looks at the Epicurean philosophy of death, focusing specifically on how they addressed the problem of premature death. The Epicureans believe that premature death is not a tragedy, provided it occurs after a person has attained the right state of pleasure. If you enjoy listening to these audio essays, and the other podcast episodes, you might consider rating and/or reviewing them on your preferred podcasting service. You can listen below or download here. You can also subscribe on Apple, Stitcher or a range of other services (the RSS feed is here). I've written lots about the philosophy of death over the years. Here are some relevant links if you would like to do further reading on the topic: The Badness of Death and the Meaning of Life (index)The Lucretian Symmetry Argument (Part 1 and Part 2)Is Death Bad or Less Good? (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4) #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Carissa Véliz. Carissa is a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities at the University of Oxford. She works on digital ethics, practical ethics more generally, political philosophy, and public policy. She is also the Director of the research programme 'Data, Privacy, and the Individual' at the IE's Center for the Governance of Change'. We talk about the problems with online speech and how to use pseudonymity to address them. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and a variety of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).  Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:25 - The problems with online speech4:55 - Anonymity vs Identifiability9:10 - The benefits of anonymous speech16:12 - The costs of anonymous speech - The online Ring of Gyges23:20 - How digital platforms mediate speech and make things worse28:00 - Is speech more trustworthy when the speaker is identifiable?30:50 - Solutions that don't work35:46 - How pseudonymity could address the problems with online speech41:15 - Three forms of pseudonymity and how they should be used44:00 - Do we need an organisation to manage online pseudonyms?49:00 - Thoughts on the Journal of Controversial Ideas54:00 - Will people use pseudonyms to deceive us?57:30 - How pseudonyms could address the issues with un-PC speech1:02:04 - Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of online speech?  Relevant LinksCarissa's Webpage"Online Masquerade: Redesigning the Internet for Free Speech Through the Use of Pseudonyms" by Carissa"Why you might want to think twice about surrendering online privacy for the sake of convenience" by Carissa"What If Banks Were the Main Protectors of Customers’ Private Data?" by CarissaThe Secret BarristerDelete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age by Viktor Mayer-SchönbergerMill's Argument for Free Speech: A Guide'Here Comes the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Cue the Outcry' by Bartlett #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Phil Torres. Phil is an author and researcher who primarily focuses on existential risk. He is currently a visiting researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University. He has published widely on emerging technologies, terrorism, and existential risks, with articles appearing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Futures, Erkenntnis, Metaphilosophy, Foresight, Journal of Future Studies, and the Journal of Evolution and Technology. He is the author of several books, including most recently Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks. We talk about the problem of apocalyptic terrorists, the proliferation dual-use technology and the governance problem that arises as a result. This is both a fascinating and potentially terrifying discussion. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and a variety of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 – Introduction3:14 – What is existential risk? Why should we care?8:34 – The four types of agential risk/omnicidal terrorists17:51 – Are there really omnicidal terror agents?20:45 – How dual-use technology give apocalyptic terror agents the means to their desired ends27:54 – How technological civilisation is uniquely vulernable to omnicidal agents32:00 – Why not just stop creating dangerous technologies?36:47 – Making the case for mass surveillance41:08 – Why mass surveillance must be asymmetrical45:02 – Mass surveillance, the problem of false positives and dystopian governance56:25 – Making the case for benevolent superintelligent governance1:02:51 – Why advocate for something so fantastical?1:06:42 – Is an anti-tech solution any more fantastical than a benevolent AI solution?1:10:20 – Does it all just come down to values: are you a techno-optimist or a techno-pessimist? Relevant LinksPhil’s webpage‘Superintelligence and the Future of Governance:
On Prioritizing the Control Problem at the End of History’ by PhilMorality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks by Phil‘The Vulnerable World Hypothesis” by Nick BostromPhil’s comparison of his paper with Bostrom’s paperThe Guardian orders the small-pox genomeSlaughterbotsThe Future of Violence by Ben Wittes and Gabriela BlumFuture Crimes by Marc Goodman The Dyn Cyberattack Autonomous Technology by Langdon Winner'Biotechnology and the Lifetime of Technological Civilisations’ by JG Sotos The God Machine Thought Experiment (Persson and Savulescu)  #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Erica Neely. Erica is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ohio Northern University specializing in philosophy of technology and computer ethics. Her work focuses is on the ethical ramifications of emerging technologies. She has written a number of papers on 3D printing, the ethics of video games, robotics and augmented reality. We chat about the ethics of augmented reality, with a particular focus on property rights and the problems that arise when we blend virtual and physical reality together in augmented reality platforms. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and a variety of other services (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:00 - What is augmented reality (AR)?5:55 - Is augmented reality overhyped?10:36 - What are property rights?14:22 - Justice and autonomy in the protection of property rights16:47 - Are we comfortable with property rights over virtual spaces/objects?22:30 - The blending problem: why augmented reality poses a unique problem for the protection of property rights27:00 - The different modalities of augmented reality: single-sphere or multi-sphere?30:45 - Scenario 1: Single-sphere AR with private property34:28 - Scenario 2: Multi-sphere AR with private property37:30 - Other ethical problems in scenario 243:25 - Augmented reality vs imagination47:15 - Public property as contested space49:38 - Scenario 3: Multi-sphere AR with public property54:30 - Scenario 4: Single-sphere AR with public property1:00:28 - Must the owner of the single-sphere AR platform be regulated as a public utility/entity?1:02:25 - Other important ethical issues that arise from the use of AR Relevant LinksErica's Homepage'Augmented Reality, Augmented Ethics: Who Has the Right to Augment a Particular Physical Space?' by Erica'The Ethics of Choice in Single Player Video Games' by Erica'The Risks of Revolution: Ethical Dilemmas in 3D Printing from a US Perspective' by Erica'Machines and the Moral Community' by EricaIKEA Place augmented reality appL'Oreal's use of augmented reality make-up appsHolocaust Museum Bans Pokemon Go  #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

This audio essay is an Easter special. It focuses on David Hume's famous argument about miracles. First written over 250 years, Hume's essay 'Of Miracles' purports to provide an "everlasting check" against all kinds of "superstitious delusion". But is this true? Does Hume give us good reason to reject the testimonial proof provided on behalf of historical miracles? Maybe not, but he certainly provides a valuable framework for thinking critically about this issue. You can download the audio here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple, Stitcher and a variety of other podcatching services (the RSS feed is here). This audio essay is based on an earlier written essay (available here). If you are interested in further reading about the topic, I recommend the following essays: Hume's Argument Against Miracles (Part One)Hume's Argument Against Miracles (Part Two)Hume, Miracles and the Many Witnesses Objection #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Stefan teaches philosophy at John Cabot University in Rome. He is director and co-founder of the Beyond Humanism Network, Fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), Research Fellow at the Ewha Institute for the Humanities at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, and Visting Fellow at the Ethics Centre of the Friedrich-Schiller-University in Jena. His main fields of research are Nietzsche, the philosophy of music, bioethics and meta-, post- and transhumanism. We talk about his case for a Nietzschean form of transhumanism. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher and a variety of other podcasting apps (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction2:12 - Recent commentary on Stefan's book Ubermensch3:41 - Understanding transhumanism - getting away from the "humanism on steroids" ideal10:33 - Transhumanism as an attitude of experimentation and not a destination?13:34 - Have we always been transhumanists?16:51 - Understanding Nietzsche22:30 - The Will to Power in Nietzschean philosophy26:41 - How to understand "power" in Nietzschean terms30:40 - The importance of perspectivalism and the abandonment of universal truth36:40 - Is it possible for a Nietzschean to consistently deny absolute truth?39:55 - The idea of the Ubermensch (Overhuman)45:48 - Making the case for a Nietzschean form of transhumanism51:00 - What about the negative associations of Nietzsche?1:02:17 - The problem of moral relativism for transhumanists Relevant LinksStefan's homepageThe Ubermensch: A Plea for a Nietzschean Transhumanism - Stefan's new book (in German)Posthumanism and Transhumanism: An Introduction - edited by Stefan and Robert Ranisch"Nietzsche, the Overhuman and Tranhumanism" by Stefan (open access)"Beyond Humanism: Reflections on Trans and Post-humanism" by Stefan (a response to critics of the previous article)Nietzsche at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Jacob Turner. Jacob is a barrister and author. We chat about his new book, Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), which discusses how to address legal responsibility, rights and ethics for AI. You can download here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes, Stitcher and a variety of other services (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:33 - Why did Jacob write Robot Rules?2:47 - Do we need special legal rules for AI?6:34 - The responsibility 'gap' problem11:50 - Private law vs criminal law: why it's important to remember the distinction14:08 - Is is easy to plug the responsibility gap in private law?23:07 - Do we need to think about the criminal law responsibility gap?26:14 - Is it absurd to hold AI criminally responsible?30:24 - The problem with holding proximate humans responsible36:40 - The positive side of responsibility: lessons from the Monkey selfie case41:50 - What is legal personhood and what would it mean to grant it to an AI?48:57 - Pragmatic reasons for granting an AI legal personhood51:48 - Is this a slippery slope?56:00 - Explainability and AI: Why is this important?1:02:38 - Is there are right to explanation under EU law?1:06:16 - Is explainability something that requires a technical solution not a legal solution?1:08:32 - The danger of fetishising explainability Relevant LinksRobot Rules: Regulating Artificial IntelligenceWebsite for the bookJacob on TwitterJacob giving a lecture about the book at the University of Law"Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap" by John DanaherThe Darknet Shopper CaseThe Monkey Selfie CaseAlgorithmic Entities by Lynn LoPucki (discussing Shawn Bayern's argument)Matthew Scherer's critique of Bayern's claim that AI's can already acquire legal personhood #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

Schopenhauer was a profoundly pessimistic man. He argued that all life was suffering. Was he right or is there room for optimism? This audio essay tries to answer that question. It is based on an earlier written essay. You can listen below or download here. These audio essays are released as part of the Philosophical Disquisitions podcast. You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Player FM, Podbay, Podbean, Castbox, Overcast and more. Full details available here. Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Seth Baum. Seth is an interdisciplinary researcher working across a wide range of fields in natural and social science, engineering, philosophy, and policy. His primary research focus is global catastrophic risk. He also works in astrobiology. He is the Co-Founder (with Tony Barrett) and Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He is also a Research Affiliate of the University of Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. We talk about the importance of studying the long-term future of human civilisation, and map out four possible trajectories for the long-term future. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on a variety of different platforms, including iTunes, Stitcher, Overcast, Podbay, Player FM and more. The RSS feed is available here. Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:39 - Why did Seth write about the long-term future of human civilisation?5:15 - Why should we care about the long-term future? What is the long-term future?13:12 - How can we scientifically and ethically study the long-term future?16:04 - Is it all too speculative?20:48 - Four possible futures, briefly sketched: (i) status quo; (ii) catastrophe; (iii) technological transformation; and (iv) astronomical23:08 - The Status Quo Trajectory - Keeping things as they are28:45 - Should we want to maintain the status quo?33:50 - The Catastrophe Trajectory - Awaiting the likely collapse of civilisation38:58 - How could we restore civilisation post-collapse? Should we be working on this now?44:00 - Are we under-investing in research into post-collapse restoration?49:00 - The Technological Transformation Trajectory - Radical change through technology52:35 - How desirable is radical technological change?56:00 - The Astronomical Trajectory - Colonising the solar system and beyond58:40 - Is the colonisation of space the best hope for humankind?1:07:22 - How should the study of the long-term future proceed from here?  Relevant LinksSeth's homepageThe Global Catastrophic Risk Institute"Long-Term Trajectories for Human Civilisation" by Baum et al"The Perils of Short-Termism: Civilisation's Greatest Threat" by Fisher, BBC NewsThe Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell"Space Colonization and the Meaning of Life" by Baum, Nautilus"Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development" by Nick Bostrom"Superintelligence as a Cause or Cure for Risks of Astronomical Suffering" by Kaj Sotala and Lucas Gloor"Space Colonization and Suffering Risks" by Phil Torres"Thomas Hobbes in Space: The Problem of Intergalactic War" by John Danaher     #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

(Subscribe here) This is an experiment. For a number of years, people have been asking me to provide audio versions of the essays that I post on the blog. I've been reluctant to do this up until now, but I have recently become a fan of the audio format and I appreciate its conveniences. Also, I watched an interview with Michael Lewis (the best-selling non-fiction author in the world) just this week where he suggested that audio essays might be the future of the essay format. So, in an effort to jump ahead of the curve (or at least jump onto the curve before it pulls away from me), I'm going to post a few audio essays over the coming months. They will all be based on stuff I've previously published on the blog, with a few minor edits and updates. I'll send them out on the regular podcast feed (which you can subscribe to in various formats here). I'm learning as I go. The quality and style will probably evolve over time, and I'm quite keen on getting feedback from listeners too. Do you like this kind of thing or would you prefer I didn't do it? This first audio essay is based on something I previously wrote on the moral problem of accelerating change. You can find the original essay here. You can listen below or download at this link. #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Jeff Sebo. Jeff is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, and Philosophy, and Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program at New York University.  Jeff’s research focuses on bioethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics. He has two co-authored books Chimpanzee Rights and Food, Animals, and the Environment. We talk about something Jeff calls the 'moral problem of other minds', which is roughly the problem of what we should to if we aren't sure whether another being is sentient or not. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes and Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:38 - What inspired Jeff to think about the moral problem of other minds?7:55 - The importance of sentience and our uncertainty about it12:32 - The three possible responses to the moral problem of other minds: (i) the incautionary principle; (ii) the precautionary principle and (iii) the expected value principle15:26 - Understanding the Incautionary Principle20:09 - Problems with the Incautionary Principle23:14 - Understanding the Precautionary Principle: More plausible than the incautionary principle?29:20 - Is morality a zero-sum game? Is there a limit to how much we can care about other beings?35:02 - The problem of demandingness in moral theory37:06 - Other problems with the precautionary principle41:41 - The Utilitarian Version of the Expected Value Principle47:36 - The problem of anthropocentrism in moral reasoning53:22 - The Kantian Version of the Expected Value Principle59:08 - Problems with the Kantian principle1:03:54 - How does the moral problem of other minds transfer over to other cases, e.g. abortion and uncertainty about the moral status of the foetus? Relevant LinksJeff's Homepage'The Moral Problem of Other Minds' by JeffChimpanzee Ethics by Jeff and orsFood, Animals and the Environment by Jeff and Christopher Schlottman'Consider the Lobster' by David Foster Wallace'Ethical Behaviourism in the Age of the Robot' by John DanaherEpisode 48 with David Gunkel on Robot Rights   #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Angèle Christin. Angèle is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Stanford University, where she is also affiliated with the Sociology Department and Program in Science, Technology, and Society. Her research focuses on how algorithms and analytics transform professional values, expertise, and work practices. She is currently working on a book on the use of audience metrics in web journalism and a project on the use of risk assessment algorithms in criminal justice. We talk about both. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:30 - What's missing from the current debate about algorithmic governance? What does Angèle's ethnographic perspective add?5:10 - How does ethnography work? What does an ethnographer do?8:30 - What are the limitations of ethnographic studies?12:33 - Why did Angèle focus on the use of algorithms in criminal justice and web journalism?23:06 - What were Angèle's two key research findings? Decoupling and Buffering24:40 - What is 'decoupling' and how does it happen?30:00 - Different attitudes to algorithmic tools in the US and France (French journalists, perhaps surprisingly, more obsessed with real time analytics than their American counterparts)39:20 - What explains the ambivalent attitude to metrics in different professions?44:42 - What is 'buffering' and how does it arise?54:30 - How people who worry about algorithms might misunderstand the practical realities of criminal justice57:47 - Does the resistance/acceptance of an algorithmic tool depend on the nature of the tool and the nature of the workplace? What might the relevant variables be?  Relevant LinksAngèle's Homepage"Algorithms in Practice: Comparing Web Journalism and Criminal Justice" by Angèle"Counting Clicks: Quantification and Variation in Web Journalism in the United States and France" by Angèle"Courts and Predictive Algorithms" by Christin, Rosenblat and Boyd"The Mistrials of Algorithmic Sentencing" by AngèleEpisode 41 with Reuben Binns (covering the debate about the Compas algorithm and bias)Episode 19 with Andrew Ferguson on big data and policing     #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

  In this episode I talk to Kate Devlin. Kate is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Digital Humanities at King's College London. Kate's research is in the fields of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), investigating how people interact with and react to technology in order to understand how emerging and future technologies will affect us and the society in which we live. Kate has become a driving force in the field of intimacy and technology, running the UK's first sex tech hackathon in 2016. She has also become the face of sex robots – quite literally in the case of one mis-captioned tabloid photograph. We talk about her recent, excellent book Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots, which covers the past, present and future of sex technology. You download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction2:08 - Why did Kate talk about sex robots in the House of Lords?3:01 - How did Kate become the face of sex robots?5:34 - Are sex robots really a thing? Should academics be researching them?11:10 - The important link between archaeology and sex technology15:00 - The myth of hysteria and the origin of the vibrator17:36 - What was the most interesting thing Kate learned while researching this book? (Ans: owners of sex dolls are not creepy isolationists)23:03 - Is there are moral panic about sex robots? And are we talking about robots or dolls?30:41 - What are the arguments made by defenders of the 'moral panic' view?38:05 - What could be the social benefits of sex robots? Do men and women want different things from sex tech?47:57 - Why is Kate so interested in 'non-anthropomorphic' sex robots?55:15 - Is the media fascination with this topic destructive or helpful?57:32 - What question does Kate get asked most often and what does she say in response?  Relevant LinksKate's WebpageKate's Academic HomepageTurned On: Science, Sex and Robots by Kate DevlinKate and I in conversation at the Virtual Futures Salon in London'A Failure of Academic Quality Control: The Technology of the Orgasm' by Hallie Lieberman and Eric Schatzberg (on the myth that vibrators were used to treat hysteria)Laodamia - Owner of the world's first sex doll?'In Defence of Sex Machines: Why trying to ban sex robots is wrong?' by Kate'Sex robot molested at electronics festival' at Huffington Post'First tester made love to sex robot so furiously it actually broke' at Metro.co.ukThe 2nd London Sex Tech HackathonRobot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications edited by Danaher and McArthur #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Ole Martin Moen. Ole Martin is a Research Fellow in Philosophy at the University of Oslo. He works on how to think straight about thorny issues in applied ethics. He is the Principal Investigator of “What should not be bought and sold?”, a $1 million research project funded by the Research Council of Norway. In the past, he has written articles about the ethics of prostitution, the desirability of cryonics, the problem of wild animal suffering and the case for philosophical hedonism. Along with his collaborator, Aksel Braanen Sterri, he runs a podcast, Moralistene (in Norwegian), and he regularly discusses moral issues behind the news on Norwegian national radio. We talk about a potentially controversial topic: the anti-tech philosophy of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczysnki, and what's wrong with it. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe via iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction2:05 - Should we even be talking about Ted Kaczynski's ethics? Does it not lend legitimacy to his views?6:32 - Are we unnecessarily anti-rational when it comes to discussing dangerous ideas?8:32 - The Evolutionary Mismatch Argument12:43 - The Surrogate Activities Argument20:20 - The Helplessness/Complexity Argument23:08 - The Unstoppability Argument26:45 - The Domesticated Animals Argument30:45 - Why does Ole Martin overlook Kaczynski's criticisms of 'leftists' in his analysis?34:03 - What's original in Kaczynski's arguments?36:31 - Are philosophers who write about Kaczynski engaging in a motte and bailey fallacy?38:36 - Ole Martin's main critique of Kaczynski: the evaluative double standard42:20 - How this double standard works in practice47:27 - Why not just drop out of industrial society instead of trying to overthrow it?55:04 - Is Kaczynski a revolutionary nihilist?58:59 - Similarities and differences between Kaczynski's argument and the work of Nick Bostrom, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu1:04:21 - Where should we go from here? Should there be more papers on this topic?   Relevant LinksOle Martin's Homepage'The Unabomber's Ethics' by Ole Martin Moen"Bright New World" and "Smarter Babies" by Ole Martin Moen"The Case for Cryonics" by Ole Martin MoenTed Kaczynski on Wikipedia (includes links to relevant writings)"The Unabomber's Penpal" - article about the philosopher David Skrbina who has corresponded with Kaczynski for some time"The Unabomber on Robots" - by Jai Galliott (article appearing in Robot Ethics 2.0 edited by Lin et al)Unfit for the Future by Ingmar Persson and Julian SavulescuNick Bostrom's Homepage (check out his recent paper 'The Vulnerable World Hypothesis")   #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In this episode I talk to Michele Loi. Michele is a political philosopher turned bioethicist turned digital ethicist. He is currently (2017-2020) working on two interdisciplinary projects, one of which is about the ethical implications of big data at the University of Zurich. In the past, he developed an ethical framework of governance for the Swiss MIDATA cooperative (2016). He is interested in bringing insights from ethics and political philosophy to bear on big data, proposing more ethical forms of institutional organization, firm behavior, and legal-political arrangements concerning data. We talk about how you can use Rawls's theory of justice to evaluate the role of dominant tech platforms (particularly Facebook) in modern life. You download the show here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:29 - Why use Rawls to assess data platforms?2:58 - Does the analogy between data and oil hold up to scrutiny?7:04 - The First Key Idea: Rawls's Basic Social Structures11:20 - The Second Key Idea: Dominant Tech Platforms as Basic Social Structures15:02 - Is Facebook a Dominant Tech Platform?19:58 - How Zuckerberg's recent memo highlights Facebook's status as a basic social structure23:10 - A brief primer on Rawls's two principles of justice29:18 - Dominant tech platforms and respect for the basic liberties (particularly free speech)36:48 - Facebook: Media Company or Nudging Platform? Does it matter from the perspective of justice?41:43 - Why Facebook might have a duty to ensure that we don't get trapped in a filter bubble44:32 - Is it fair to impose such a duty on Facebook as a private enterprise?51:18 - Would it be practically difficult for Facebook to fulfil this duty?53:02 - Is data-mining and monetisation exploitative?56:14 - Is it possible to explore other economic models for the data economy?59:44 - Can regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR) incentivise alternative business models?1:01:50 - Is there hope for the future?  Relevant LinksMichele on TwitterMichele on Research Gate'If data is the new oil, when is the extraction of value from data unjust?' by Loi and Dehaye'Technological Unemployment and Human Disenhancement' by Michele Loi'The Digital Phenotype: A Philosophical and Ethical Exploration' by Michele Loi'A Blueprint for content governance and enforcement' by Mark Zuckerberg'Should libertarians hate the internet? A Nozickian Argument Against Social Networks' by John DanaherJohn Rawls's Two Principles of Justice, explained   #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter