Academic Edgelords

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 doin...

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,...

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 ef...

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...

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. Mar...

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 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 examin...

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 le...

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 e...

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 respo...

What if democracy isn’t broken, but its very foundation—elections—is the problem? In this episode, we unpack Alexander Guerrero’s provocative case for lottocracy : a system that replaces elected officials with randomly selected citizens. Guerrero argues that elections breed inequality, corruption, and short-term thinking, while lottocracy promises fairness and more authentic representa...

In this episode, we welcome Mike Watson, political theorist, artist, and author, to explore the intersections of digital culture, socialism, and existential thought. We read Mike’s new book, Hungry Ghosts in the Machine , where he explores how online culture shapes community, addiction, and identity. On this episode we ask, is our malaise in the digital age caused by capitalism or is it intrinsic...

In this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to manipulate encourage citizens to make better choic...

In this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take : monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners. Chalmers sets himself a high bar: not only does he need to show that non-monogamy is morall...

On this episode, we dive deep into Brian Leiter’s “ The Case Against Free Speech .” Leiter questions the sanctity of free speech, suggesting that not all speech deserves equal protection if it causes societal harm. Is it really a blanket right, or are we just covering up society’s harms? Tune in as we tear into the freedoms you thought you had and discuss whether Leiter’s ideas a...

In this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “ Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First ?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas, suggesting that utilitarians, who support sacrificing one for the greater good, could be...

On this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “ In defense of the ivory tower: Why philosophers should stay out of politics “. In it, van der Vossen argues that academic philosophers have a duty to avoid engaging in politics. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic i...

Hide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In 2023, the very edgy Journal of Controversial Ideas published “ Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible “. In it, Fira Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex. We recorded this episode more than six months ago and we’re excited (and nervous) for people to finally h...

We’re back! For our relaunch episode, we chose an article that helps us reflect on this podcast’s mission: “Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk” by Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman. The paper argues that there is a difficult dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressi...

This week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar's The Human Predicament.

We interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about his controversial ethnographic methods and the unsavoury people he studies. "They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends," writes Teitelbaum.

We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there's nothing wrong with that.

This week we have one of our first encounters with the Academic Edgelord final boss, Stephan Kershnar. We actually look at one his milder takes, which argues against equality of opportunity. We'll examine the case, and also ask what exactly Kershnar is in general: a useful gadfly, a dishonest ideologue, or just a petulant troll?

On this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the extent to which it is even true that ideological diversity is a problem on university campuses, and if it is, what the best ways to solve it might be.

On this week's episode, we read Jason Brennan's 2016 book, "Against Democracy". In it, Brennan offers a controversial argument for replacing democracy with an "epistocracy" - rule by the knowledgeable.