Podcast appearances and mentions of Julian Savulescu

Join DiscourseGareth Davies, Mayor of The Real Science of Sport, is ready to welcome you as a citizen of our VIP community! To join the conversation, make a monthly pledge at Patreon.com and get access to the shared expertise and passion of fellow listenersShow notesIn this week's Spotlight, we tackle an intriguing training question from a listener in our Discourse community: do short surges during easy or moderate training days undermine the training benefit? To explore this, we look to the current Giro d'Italia, where Richard Carapaz and rising star Isaac del Toro offer real-world examples of how intensity, even in brief bursts, may create a significant physiological cost. While small deviations from planned intensity are not only acceptable but often necessary, trouble arises when these efforts become too frequent or too intense. We introduce the concept of a physiological budget, and how consistent overspending can lead to a kind of training “bankruptcy,” where the cost outweighs the benefit. We break down how it's the intensity that exponentially increases physiological stress, and how to manage that cost wisely in your own training.Then we shift gears to rugby, where the red card rule is about to undergo a significant transformation. Under the new law, a team will no longer play with 14 players for the rest of the match—after 20 minutes, they can bring on a replacement. In response to split opinion in the Rugby community, Gareth asks: “What's the big deal?”. Ross explains why this change has divided the sport, delving into the broader context of concussion prevention, and how sanction was meant to carry the message for behaviour change. Ross shares insights from his newly published paper showing that women are concussed in the same way as men, adding a crucial layer to the ongoing head injury debate.In our news wrap, we stay on safety, where the NFL has decided not to ban the controversial "tush push". We examine how that decision parallels rugby's own risk-management principles. Beatrice Chebet ran the second-fastest 3000m in history last week, putting herself onto a controversial list of Chinese names who had appeared to move that World Record out of reach. Ross offers a prediction that it's a matter of time before the WR falls to Chebet (along with others).And the Enhanced Games claim a “world record” performance of its own, leading us to again discuss the ethics, science, and inevitable sales pitch driving the campaign, and why giving oxygen to the now transparent anti-aging commercial objectives of the Games may not be a good idea.LinksThe question that inspired our Training Zone discussion - for Discourse members onlyRoss' recent paper on the risk of head injuries in elite women rugby playersThe NFL does not ban the 'tush push'. For nowArticle by Julian Savulescu on why doping should be allowed (an oldie!) Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Fr. Michael Baggot joins the show to talk about Transhumanism. Who are the leading thinkers in the movement? What philosophies underpin the movement? What is the goal of tranhumanism? How does Transhumanism relate to Transgenderism? Father addresses all these questions. Show Sponsors: Ascension: https://ascensionpress.com/fradd Strive21: https://strive21.com/matt Father's Book: https://www.routledge.com/Enhancement-Fit-for-Humanity-Perspectives-on-Emerging-Technologies/Baggot-Gomez-Carrara-Tham/p/book/9781032115856 Fr.'s Links: https://www.magisterium.com/ https://upra.org  https://catholic.tech https://catholicworldview.com  @ThoseTwoPriests  References: When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T Anderson: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/when-harry-became-sally-ryan-anderson/1125792437 The Transhumanist FAQ by Nick Bostrom: https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf Unfit for the Future by Julian Savulescu: https://www.amazon.com/Unfit-Future-Enhancement-Uehiro-Practical/dp/019965364X Better Than Well by Carl Elliot: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Than-Well-American-Medicine/dp/0393325652 A Free Man's Worship by Bertrand Russel: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/fmw.htm The Space Trilogy by CS Lewis: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Trilogy-C-S-Lewis/dp/068483118X The End of Sex by Hank Greely: https://www.amazon.com/End-Sex-Future-Human-Reproduction/dp/0674728963  

By Nick Bostrom and Julian Savulescu.Background:Are we good enough? If not, how may we improve ourselves? Must we restrict ourselves to traditional methods like study and training? Or should we also use science to enhance some of our mental and physical capacities more directly?Over the last decade, human enhancement has grown into a major topic of debate in applied ethics. Interest has been stimulated by advances in the biomedical sciences, advances which to many suggest that it will become increasingly feasible to use medicine and technology to reshape, manipulate, and enhance many aspects of human biology even in healthy individuals. To the extent that such interventions are on the horizon (or already available) there is an obvious practical dimension to these debates. This practical dimension is underscored by an outcrop of think tanks and activist organizations devoted to the biopolitics of enhancement.Read the full paper:https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/human-enhancement-ethics.pdfMore episodes at:https://radiobostrom.com/

By Nick Bostrom and Julian Savulescu.Abstract:Are we good enough? If not, how may we improve ourselves? Must we restrict ourselves to traditional methods like study and training? Or should we also use science to enhance some of our mental and physical capacities more directly?Read the full paper:https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/human-enhancement-ethics.pdfMore episodes at:https://radiobostrom.com/

Alan speaks with Julian Savulescu, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, about the ethics behind 'selective' lockdowns. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Brian Earp (@briandavidearp) is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics & Health Policy & a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. His work is cross-disciplinary, following training in philosophy, cognitive science, psychology, history & sociology of science and medicine, & ethics. He has written extensively on resisting traditional & religious justifications for causing harm – particularly to children through genital mutilation / circumcision. He wrote the book "Love Drugs" w/Julian Savulescu. Brian is also a professional singer & actor. In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “what matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube. We discuss: 0:00 Welcome 02:00 Brian's Intro - Academically trying to understand the world & lay out how it should be. 03:04 What's Real? - Growing up in Seattle in a Free Methodist Evangelical Christian society - Mum: Christianity & god. Dad: A more naturalist perspective - "Evolution was something that might tempt us away from the path of righteousness" - Unthinkingly accepting Christianity at first - Asking questions of the pastor at 12/13 yrs. Is it fair to send people to hell who have never even heard of Jesus? - The problem of evil... while being emotionally sensitive to the pain of others - Taking "a very serious concern with morality" from mum's Christian worldview even as a kid - Divine command theory: things are right/wrong because god says so - Agnostic re: metaphysics: "What do you mean by god?" - The burden of proof is on the claimant... "Wow - how are you confident about that?" - Bible college vs. secular Yale - Studying philosophy at college - The fundamental fact claims fell apart - Ethical concerns: religious homophobia etc. The tension between strict religious rules & personal compassionate intuitions "something has to go here!" - "Unless I have an independent reason to believe one view over another..." 15:37 What Matters? - Supernatural worldview risks to universal compassion - Can compassion go too far? Undermining justice/fairness? - Agnostic about the grounding of ethics / meta-ethics - Instead a Quinian web of beliefs & intuitions I'm pretty darn sure about: "Needless suffering of an innocent person"... "Treating people differently without reason"... "concern for the disadvantaged / those without power or representation" then reasoning about cases - "We should believe what we have best reason to believe" ...and much more. Full show notes at Sentientism.info and on YouTube. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info. Join our "I'm a Sentientist" wall via this simple form. Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on FaceBook. Come join us there! Thanks Graham.

Speakers: Professors Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu, from the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, UK. Moderator: Professor David Isaacs, Clinician-ethicist and infectious diseases physician, Children's Hospital, Westmead, Australia. In this session, Prof Savulescu accepts the premise that a safe COVID-19 vaccine is developed and brings a consequentialist approach to justify mandatory vaccination. Prof Wilkinson rebuts this, indicating mandatory vaccination is unjustified coercion.

Speakers: Professors Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu, from the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, UK. Moderator: Professor David Isaacs, Clinician-ethicist and infectious diseases physician, Children's Hospital, Westmead, Australia.In this session, Prof Savulescu accepts the premise that a safe COVID-19 vaccine is developed and brings a consequentialist approach to justify mandatory vaccination. Prof Wilkinson rebuts this, indicating mandatory vaccination is unjustified coercion.

Who can forget these memorable moments in sports when reigning world champions lost their titles, medals, and invitations to compete as punishment for testing positive for performance enhancing drugs. But while most sports experts agree these high-profile scandals represent just the tip of the iceberg, some say the time has come to accept that doping is part and parcel of the spectacle of elite sport. They argue that the days where athletes won medals based on natural genetic advantage and dedicated training are long gone and that the World Anti Doping Administration's push for clean athletes is wishful fantasy. The future of sport is one where athletes will push their physiological boundaries with the help of steroids, hormones, and yes even gene editing, embracing the high-tech innovation that is revolutionizing every other aspect of our lives. Anti-doping crusaders respond that a sporting world that allows unrestricted access to performance enhancement drugs is one that threatens athletes' lives and also spells the end of sport as we have played and watched it for thousands of years. They argue that the most powerful reason to ban doping is that it undermines the skill development and overcoming of physical and mental obstacles that lies at the heart of fair play. Substances that provide immediate athletic advantages without any work or struggle represents the beginning of a joyless and pointless brave new world in sports. Arguing for the motion is Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, where he directs the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. Arguing against the motion is Angela Schneider, Director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies, an Associate Professor in Kinisiology at the University of Western Ontario, and an Olympic silver medallist in rowing. Sources: BBC Sport, ABC News, Huff Post, CNBC, TNW, Calgary Herald, NBC, Channel 4, City News The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to podcast@munkdebates.com. To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ The Munk Debates podcast is produced by Antica, Canada's largest private audio production company - https://www.anticaproductions.com/   Executive Producer: Stuart Coxe, CEO Antica Productions Senior Producer: Christina Campbell Editor: Kieran Lynch Producer: Nicole Edwards Associate Producer: Abhi Raheja

New scientific guidelines have been released this week on embryo research and the use of stem cells. We talk to experts about what's changed – including a recommendation to relax the 14-day time limit for human embryo research. And we hear about a wave of romantic comedy films emerging from South Africa that are re-imagining the city of Johannesburg. Welcome to episode 17 of The Conversation Weekly. It's been five years since the last set of guidelines from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) were published. Since then, scientists have made significant developments in stem cell and embryo research. Now, new ISSCR guidelines have just been published. In this episode, we look at what's changing in this field of research, and what the new guidelines say. One of the most significant shifts concerns what's called the 14-day rule, a time limit for how long human embryos can be grown in the lab. While these aren't law, they guide the regulations about this kind of research in countries around the world. We hear from Megan Munsie, deputy director for the Centre for Stem Cell Systems at the University of Melbourne and one of the scientists who sat on the panel that reviewed the guidelines about what's changed. Jun Wu, assistant professor in molecular biology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre, explains his new research on human embryo models and why it provides an alternative to using human embryos. And César Palacios-González, senior research fellow in practical ethics at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, talks through some of the questions philosophers consider about the ethics of human embryo research. In our second story (at 25m20), we head to South Africa, where a wave of romantic comedies have hit the big screen in recent years. Many of them are based in Johannesburg. Pier Paolo Frassinelli, professor of communication and media studies at the University of Johannesburg, talks to us about his research into these films and how they are reimagining the city.And Wale Fatade, commissioning editor at The Conversation in Lagos, Nigeria, gives us his recommended reading. The Conversation Weekly is produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware, with sound design by Eloise Stevens. Special thanks for this episode go to Matt Williams in New York. Our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. If you'd like to sign up for The Conversation's free daily newsletter, please subscribe here. To get in touch, find us on Twitter @TC_Audio or on Instagram at theconversationdotcom. Or you can email us on podcast@theconversation.com. Full credits for this episode can be found here. Further reading:New global guidelines for stem cell research aim to drive discussions, not lay down the law, by Megan Munsie, The University of Melbourne and Melissa Little, Murdoch Children's Research InstituteResearchers have grown ‘human embryos' from skin cells. What does that mean, and is it ethical? by Megan Munsie, The University of Melbourne and Helen Abud, Monash UniversityFirst human-monkey embryos created – a small step towards a huge ethical problem, by Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford and César Palacios-González, University of OxfordSouth Africa's romcom revolution and how it reimagines Joburg, by Pier Paolo Frassinelli, University of JohannesburgEthiopia's blockchain deal is a watershed moment – for the technology, and for Africa, by Iwa Salami, University of East LondonWhy young Nigerians are returning to masquerade rituals, even in a Christian community, by Kingsley Ikechukwu Uwaegbute, University of Nigeria See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

  Vane y Siete Rayos Lobo platican sobre la salvación en la historia y la brujería.  Por qué estas salado?    

If you’re looking for a way to explore the concept of meaning, how it relates to culture, religion, politics, history, sexuality, dissatisfaction, and so much more, this podcast is for you. We’re currently experiencing a crisis of meaning. People and groups are divided, each convinced their way of thinking and their beliefs are the “right” ones. We have a hard time letting multiple things be true at the same time, when in reality they are but all of our realities are different. We get weighed down by the complexities of information overload and experience grief in the process. Since most of us run from bad feelings or simply don’t know how to address them, we go into denial and look for an escape. We end up with more anxiety, more depression, and poorer relationships. But this isn’t an unstoppable progression. Today on The Dhru Purohit Podcast, Dhru talks to Jamie Wheal about why it’s so hard to make sense of the world right now and what we can do to help ourselves expand our understanding. They discuss the five key drivers that give us the tools to wake up, grow up, and show up for ourselves. They also talk about how we move from broken to whole, and how we cure isolation with connection. Jamie is the author of the global bestseller and Pulitzer Prize-nominated Stealing Fire: How Silicon Valley, Navy SEALs and Maverick Scientists are Revolutionizing the Way We Live and Work. Jamie is an expert in peak performance and leadership, specializing in neuroanthropology––the intersection of culture, biology, and psychology—and the founder of the Flow Genome Project, an international organization dedicated to the research and training of ultimate human performance. In this episode, we dive into: -Why we are in a crisis of meaning (3:12)-The current culture wars (34:35) -The apocalypse we find ourselves in (1:03:30) -The three things that help us deal with life better (1:06:20)-How to be inclusive (1:08:59)-Alchemy and personal transformation (1:36:44)-Why sexuality can be a powerful gateway into higher consciousness (1:37:43)-Orgasms as a treatment for depression (2:00:51:14) -How music connects us (2:19:52)-How to get out of our own way and create greater connection (2:54:30)Also mentioned in this episode:-The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Dr. Bessel van der Kolk - https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748-Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships by Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu - https://www.amazon.com/Love-Drugs-Chemical-Future-Relationships/dp/0804798192-This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin - https://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0452288525For more on Jamie Wheal you can follow him on Instagram @flowgenome, on Facebook @jamiewhealpage, on Twitter @flowgenome, and through his website https://www.flowgenomeproject.com/. Get his book, Recapture The Rapture: Rethinking God, Sex, and Death in a World That’s Lost its Mind at https://www.recapturetherapture.com/. For more on Dhru Purohit, be sure to follow him on Instagram @dhrupurohit, on Facebook @dhruxpurohit, on Twitter @dhrupurohit, and on YouTube @dhrupurohit. You can also text Dhru at (302) 200-5643 or click here https://my.community.com/dhrupurohit.Interested in joining The Dhru Purohit Podcast Facebook Community? Submit your request to join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2819627591487473/.This episode is brought to you by Thrive Market and BLUblox.Thrive Market makes it so easy to stay stocked with healthy ingredients. Right now, Thrive is offering all my listeners an amazing deal. When you sign up for a new membership, you will receive a free gift. And, any time you spend more than $49, you’ll get free carbon-neutral shipping from one of their zero-waste warehouses. Go to thrivemarket.com/dhru to sign-up.As someone who is on the computer a lot, I realized all that screen time was negatively affecting how well I slept. I started learning about blue light and how it disrupts the body’s natural melatonin production, so I decided to try blue-light blocking glasses throughout the day to see if they helped—and they totally did. I love the blue-light blocking glasses made by BLUblox. BLUblox glasses reduced my digital eye strain and dramatically improved my sleep, and I have more energy throughout the day. Right now BLUblox is offering my listeners 20% off, just go to blublox.com/dhru and use code DHRU at checkout. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What if Love Potion No. 9 already exists and can be prescribed by your doctor? Brian D. Earp is associate director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy and a research fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. He joins host Krys Boyd to argue that drugs that can help strengthen – and sever – relationships are out there now, and it’s time to understand the ethics and morals behind their use. His book, co-authored with Julian Savulescu, is “Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships.”

St Cross College Fellow Julian Savulescu, Uehiru Professor of Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, in conversation with Stanley Ulijaszek about ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic. St Cross College Fellow Julian Savulescu, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Uehiru Professor of Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, in conversation with Stanley Ulijaszek about the ethical principles that are important in determining possible responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hoe ver wil je gaan om jezelf aan te passen? Wat zijn de gevolgen daarvan, ook op anderen? Wat zijn ethische dilemma's rondom de supermens? Hierover praat ik met Julian Savulescu. De Australische professor Julian Savulescu is hoogleraar aan de Universiteit van Oxford, Engeland. Het interview is opgenomen tijdens de dag van de Maakbare Mens in oktober 2019 in Gent, België. Dit is een gesprek in het kader van de Supermens Serie. Het verhaal en interview zijn de basis voor een hoofdstuk in mijn nieuwe boek Supermens. Het boek komt in het najaar van 2020 uit. Bestel: https://tiny.cc/supermens

"Stakeholder Capitalism" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Show website: https://governamerica.com Vicky's Websites: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com and http://channelingreality.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22372-govern-america-august-22-2020-stakeholder-capitalism LISTEN LIVE EVERY SATURDAY AT 11AM EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME / 8AM PACIFIC AT http://live.governamerica.com DNC convention gives Trump a boost in his approval rating. Two hurricanes bear down on U.S. as wildfires devastate the west. FBI tweets out the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Millie Weaver update. Commentary on the Kevin Clinesmith guilty plea. What was a missile doing at a Florida airport, used by defense contractors? New York governor Andrew Cuomo believes government is an immune system. The insolvency of the postal system and mail in ballot fraud. Maine governor mandates restaurant workers to wear dog cones on their heads. Biden promises a national face diaper mandate. Ethicist professors push for "morality pills", chemicals, and eugenics to engineer behavior modification to force compliance with dictatorial health mandates. The communitarian madness of Immanuel Kant lives and thrives in the doctrines of globalism, and Black Lives Matter. The transformation of the Business Roundtable and what it means for society.

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brian’s book, jointly written with Julian Savulescu, can be found here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Love-Drugs-Chemical-Future-Relationships/dp/0804798192 and here: https://www.amazon.com/Love-Drugs-Chemical-Future-Relationships/dp/0804798192. You can review Brian’s academic work here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Earp Follow Brian YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/earptube Follow Brian on Twitter: @briandavidearp Brian’s previous appearance on this podcast can be found here: https://soundcloud.com/user-761174326/13-brian-earp Additional References Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness (1969). I discuss the book briefly here: https://uncommongroundmedia.com/ursula-le-guin-left-hand-darkness/ Harry Frankfurt’s “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person” (1971) is paywalled, but you can find a summary here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/ Rhys Southan, “Re-Orientation”: https://medium.com/@rhys/re-orientation-fb131ba7bd9b Timestamps 4:51 The therapeutic possibilities of pro-love drugs 5:37 Biological theories of love: modulating brain chemicals 14:42 The Left Hand of Darkness 17:05 Using MDMA 17:58 Questions of authenticity, first-order & second-order desires 21:05 Changing your sexuality 23:09 Online dating 29:31 The real thing and its imitations: Argentine tango & theatre 38:46 When should we use pro-love drugs, should they be medically prescribed? 45:48 Anti-love drugs. Dampening the libido with antidepressants. 49:10 High-tech conversion therapies 1:03:24 The medicalization of love 1:06:49 Leaving dysfunctional relationships 1:15:19 The future of love and anti-love drugs

Our guest on the podcast today, Brian D. Earp. He’s the Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics & Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center, and a Research Fellow in the Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. He’s the co-author of Love Drugs along with Julian Savulescu. We talk about ‘love drugs’: Could psychedelics serve as a catalyst for falling in and out of love? Sounds like a futuristic invention or a movie premise, but it’s the topic of Brian D. Earp’s new book: Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships. Brian talks science, no science fiction. So what about an ‘anti-love drug’? Maybe to help us get over an ex-partner? As much as some psychedelic-assisted experiences may help couples strengthen their emotional ties, others might help individuals let go of their emotional connections during a difficult break-up. These substances, like MDMA (the active ingredient in ecstasy), already exist, and they can have profoundly transformative effects on our feelings of love. Enjoy!

In this episode I talk (again) to Brian Earp. Brian is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center, and a Research Fellow in the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. Brian has diverse research interests in ethics, psychology, and the philosophy of science. His research has been covered in Nature, Popular Science, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Atlantic, New Scientist, and other major outlets. We talk about his latest book, co-authored with Julian Savulescu, on love drugs.You can listen to the episode below or download it here. You can also subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify and other leading podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).Show Notes0:00 - Introduction2:17 - What is love? (Baby don't hurt me) What is a love drug?7:30 - What are the biological underpinnings of love?10:00 - How constraining is the biological foundation to love?13:45 - So we're not natural born monogamists or polyamorists?17:48 - Examples of actual love drugs23:32 - MDMA in couples therapy27:55 - The situational ethics of love drugs33:25 - The non-specific nature of love drugs39:00 - The basic case in favour of love drugs40:48 - The ethics of anti-love drugs44:00 - The ethics of conversion therapy48:15 - Individuals vs systemic change50:20 - Do love drugs undermine autonomy or authenticity?54:20 - The Vice of In-Principlism56:30 - The future of love drugs  Relevant LinksBrian's Academia.edu page (freely accessible papers)Brian's Researchgate page (freely accessible papers)Brian asking Sam Harris a questionThe book: Love Drugs or Love is the Drug'Love and enhancement technology'by Brian Earp'The Vice of In-principlism and the Harmfulness of Love' by me  #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

What does "good ethics" means when it comes to gene editing? What types of conversations should we be having about this technology? Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, shares his thoughts on these topics and more, including moral and human enhancement, and why he called Dr. He Jiankui's experiment "monstrous."

What does "good ethics" means when it comes to gene editing? What types of conversations should we be having about this technology? Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, shares his thoughts on these topics and more, including moral and human enhancement, and why he called Dr. He Jiankui's experiment "monstrous."

Patricia Churchland is the queen of neurophilosophy. She’s on fine form in this interview - charming, funny and occasionally savage as we range over her views on the nature of philosophy, the neuroscience and evolution of morality, and consider what’s wrong with the two major ethical traditions in western thought: utilitarianism and Kantianism.  1.43 - Is philosophy just a kind of science in its infancy - a ‘proto-science’ - or it is a special kind of conceptual analysis? Professor Churchland doesn’t pull her punches as she takes on the ‘language police’ approach to philosophy. 8.03 Why so much philosophy is useless. “They make finer and finer distinctions, which nobody in the sciences gives a tinker’s damn about!” 9.03 How epistemology is just ‘isms up the ying yang’! 10.40 What good work is being done in philosophy, and what makes it good? Walter Sinnott Armstrong, Owen Flanagan and Julian Savulescu get nods of approval. 12.00 We set to work discussing Professor Churchland’s book Conscience. Where does moral motivation come from in humans and other mammals? 16.20 Why was the evolution of warm-bloodedness important in this story? 18:00 The emergence of the cortex in mammals. Why the most sophisticated animals are the most helpless when they are born, and why it enables the most powerful learning.  20:40 Why the mammalian dependence on a caregiver is the origin of moral concern. 23.20 What precursors to moral behaviour do we see in chimpanzees, wolves and rodents? 28.40 What’s the difference between chimps and humans? It’s just more neurons! But, argues Prof Churchland, quantitative changes can beget qualitative differences in cognition and behaviour, as illustrated by advances in AI. 33.00 The Purveyors Of Pure Reason - what’s wrong with utilitarianism - and why is the contemporary Effective Altruist movement ‘a bit of an abomination’? Prof Churchland takes exception to the idea that 10 homeless folk should matter to her more than her own daughter, and defends the importance of community as a valid source of moral motivation. She explains why Russian philosophers called utilitarianism ‘Lenin’s Math.’ 44.00 How can neuroscience and evolution theory tell us anything important about ethics? Prof Churchland tackles the naturalistic fallacy, and argues that the sciences can usefully constrain our theorising. She celebrates the contributions of Hume and Aristotle. 47.32 Why morality is a lot harder than most moral philosophers think: it’s not just about figuring out some simple over-arching principles. Moral issues are really practical problems, not primarily exercises in rational reflection.    54.25 There are no moral authorities - but that shouldn’t cause us existential angst. We should be like the Buddhists and Confucians. TL:DR - Aristotle and Hume had it right: there are no moral authorities and no grand rules to live by. You gotta figure it out as you go along.  Follow NOUS on Twitter @NSthepodcast

Do you wanna know what love is? Is love all you need? What is love? How many song titles can you feasibly get into an opening paragraph? We answer all these questions and more in this episode of the Pint of Science podcast. We caught up with evolutionary anthropologist Dr Anna Machin in The Old Thatched Inn in Adstock, Buckinghamshire, and asked her about her research on romantic love, the role of the father, and her media work on the likes of Channel 4’s Married at First Sight. Oh, and using ancient hand axes to do unspeakable things in a garage...    Welcome to the second episode of the Pint of Science podcast. Each week, we meet scientists in pubs around the UK to find out about their lives, their universe, and everything. From *how* fruit flies love to *why* humans love, via jumping into volcanoes, winning Olympic medals, where we came from and more!   Like what we do? Let us know using the hashtag #pintcast19. And be sure to subscribe to us and rate us on your favourite podcasting platform!   The Pint of Science podcast is a part of the Pint of Science Festival, the world's largest science communication festival. Thousands of guests and speakers descend on pubs in hundreds of cities worldwide to introduce science in a fun, engaging, and usually pint-fuelled way.   This podcast is made possible with the help of our sponsors Brilliant.org. Do check them out, and visit www.brilliant.org/PintOfScience/ where the first 200 people who sign up will get 20% off a Premium plan!    About Anna Machin, this week's guest:   Dr Anna Machin is an evolutionary anthropologist, writer and broadcaster. Her work is about the very nature of 'being human'. She is world renowned for her pioneering work exploring the science and anthropology of fatherhood and her cross-disciplinary interpretation of human parental and romantic love. She is regularly called upon to share her knowledge about human social relationships and behaviour with the media, public and policy makers. As one of the most visible female scientists in the media today she has brought her knowledge and infectious enthusiasm for the human sciences to the TV screen in two seasons of Married at First Sight (Channel 4) and alongside Michael Moseley on Meet the Humans (BBC Earth).   Her first book, ‘The Life of Dad’, was released last year.    Click here for more info on the Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson work we breifly discuss in the episode.   Watch Anna's incredible Tedx talk  

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

Da er vi tilbake fra ferie. Puh, for en sommer! Nå er vi lei av solvarmen og ser frem til en kjølig og fuktig høst. Vi har også lyst til å skravle litt om store ting, og derfor tok vi en prat med filosof, forsker, transhumanist og hedonist Ole Martin Moen om Ted Kaczynski, også kjent som Unabomberen, teknologimotstanderen som med sine brevbomber spredde skrekk og terror i USA, og hvis manifest i stor grad ble plagiert av vår egen Anders Behring Breivik. Vi rekker også å gå innom populisme i Romerriket og hvorfor man ikke bør lese aviser.Programledere er som vanlig Sturla Haugsgjerd og Anders Imenes, men denne gangen har vi vært så heldige å få med vår varaprogramleder Andreas Wahl Blomkvist også! Til sist: om noen av våre lyttere blir nysgjerrig på Kaczynski og teknologimotstand etter denne episoden, så vil vi minne dere på at man ikke kan lytte til Skravleklassen uten teknologi, og det er jo bare trist.Uansett så er bøker som nevnes og anbefales i episoden:- Superintelligence av Nick Bostrom.- Unfit for the Future av Ingmar Persson og Julian Savulescu.

„Sicherheitshalber“ – der neue Podcast zur sicherheitspolitischen Lage in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt – ist zurück mit Folge 2. Diesmal diskutieren Thomas Wiegold, Frank Sauer, Carlo Masala und Ulrike Franke folgende Themen: Wie steht es mit der Debatte um die Beschaffung bewaffnungsfähiger Drohnen für die Bundeswehr? Was sagt uns die neue “Konzeption der Bundeswehr” (KdB), insbesondere mit Blick auf die deutsche Teilnahme an sog. “Ad-hoc-Koalitionen”? Und zu guter Letzt (Achtung Sommerloch!): Braucht Deutschland Atomwaffen? (Spoiler: nein!) Erwähnte Literatur und Dokumente: Thema 1: Drohnen für die Bundeswehr Ulrike Franke 2018: Killerroboter? Es geht auch anders, in: Die Zeit, 14. April 2018. https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2018-04/kampfdrohnen-luftwaffe-spd-union-debatte Thomas Wiegold & Kai Biermann 2015: Drohnen: Chancen und Gefahren einer neuen Technik, Ch. Links Verlag. https://www.amazon.de/Drohnen-Chancen-Gefahren-einer-Technik/dp/3861538180 Grunts in the Sky (20min-Dokumentation zur A-10 Warthog und Luftnahunterstützung), in: https://www.realcleardefense.com/2018/01/05/039grunts_in_the_sky039_299417.html Beauchamp, Zack, and Julian Savulescu. “Robot Guardians: Teleoperated Combat Vehicles in Humanitarian Military Intervention.” In Killing by Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military. Edited by Bradley Jay Strawser, 106–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Thema 2: Konzeption der Bundeswehr Bundesministerium der Verteidigung 2018: Die Konzeption der Bundeswehr https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/26544/9ceddf6df2f48ca87aa0e3ce2826348d/20180731-konzeption-der-bundeswehr-data.pdf Carlo Masala 2018: Weltunordnung: Die globalen Krisen und das Versagen des Westens, C.H. Beck, 2. Aufl. https://www.amazon.de/dp/B079T4R5L2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_H0yABbD345674 Thema 3: Deutsche Nuklearwaffen? Christian Hacke 2018: Der Elefant im Raum, in: Welt am Sonntag. 29.7.2018, S. 4. Wolfgang Ischinger 2018: Ein atomares Deutschland wäre verhängnisvoll, in: Die Welt. 30.07.2018 https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus180159046/Nato-Ein-atomares-Deutschland-waere-ein-Verhaengnis.html Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestags 2017: Völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen Deutschlands beim Umgang mit Kernwaffen: Deutsche und europäische Ko-Finanzierung ausländischer Nuklearwaffenpotentiale, Sachstand WD 2 - 3000 - 013/17 https://www.bundestag.de/blob/513080/c9a903735d5ea334181c2f946d2cf8a2/wd-2-013-17-pdf-data.pdf Gunther Hellmann, Carlo Masala, Frank Sauer und Reinhard Wolf 2016: Deutschland braucht keine Atomwaffen, in: SPIEGEL ONLINE. 11.12.2016 http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/gastbeitrag-deutschland-braucht-keine-atomwaffen-a-1125247.html Ulrich Kühn/Tristan Volpe 2017: Keine Atombombe, Bitte. Why Germany Should Not Go Nuclear, in: Foreign Affairs: July/August, 103–112. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/2017-06-13/keine-atombombe-bitte Maximilian Terhalle, “Fuer eine europäische Atommacht, Frankfurter Allgemeine 13.11.2017 https://twitter.com/IRmt74/status/1024318775045369856 Sauer, Frank 2015: Atomic Anxiety. Deterrence, Taboo and the Non-Use of U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://www.palgrave.com/de/book/9781137533739

Could genetic engineering one day allow parents to have designer babies? Tatiana Vdb/flickr, CC BYWhat if humans are genetically unfit to overcome challenges like climate change and the growing inequality that looks set to define our future? Julian Savulescu, visiting professor at Monash University and Uehiro professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that modifying the biological traits of humans should be part of the solution to secure a safe and desirable future. The University of Melbourne’s William Isdale spoke to Julian Savulescu about what aspects of humanity could be altered by genetic modifications and why it might one day actually be considered unethical to withhold genetic enhancements that could have an overwhelmingly positive effect on a child’s life. Subscribe to The Conversation’s Speaking With podcasts on Apple Podcasts, or follow on Tunein Radio. Additional Audio VPro Extra - The Perfect Human Being: Julian Savulescu on human enhancement Channel Four Television Corporation - Science and the Swastika VPro Extra - The Perfect Human Being: Michael Sandel on the values of being a human being Music Free Music Archive: Blue Dot Sessions - Wisteria Free Music Archive: Kai Engel - Pacific Garbage Patch Free Music Archive: Circus Marcus - La tapa del domingo William Isdale does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Go on - admit it. You like to feel you're above average. Don't worry. We all like to feel we're somehow special - that our gifts make us stand out from - and above - the crowd. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as positive illusion. It's the sort of self-deception that helps maintain our self-esteem; a white lie we tell ourselves. The classic example is driving: the majority of people regard themselves as more skilful and less risky than the average driver. But research just published shows that this characteristic isn't confined to skills like driving. Experiments carried out by psychologists at London's Royal Holloway University found most people strongly believe they are just, virtuous and moral and yet regard the average person as - well, how shall we put it politely? Let's just say - distinctly less so. Virtually all the those taking part irrationally inflated their moral qualities. Worse, the positive illusion of moral superiority is much stronger and more prevalent than any other form of positive illusion. Now, as a programme that's been testing our nation's moral fibre for more than 25 years, we feel this is something we're uniquely qualified to talk about. Well, we would wouldn't we? So, if we can't entirely rely on our own calibration to judge a person's moral worth, how should we go about it? Is the answer better and clearer rules, a kind of updated list of commandments? There might need to be a lot more than ten though. Does legal always mean moral? In a world that is becoming increasingly fractious, being less morally judgmental sounds attractive, but if we accept that morality is merely a matter of cognitive bias, do we take the first step on the road to moral relativism? The Moral Maze - making moral judgements so you don't have to. Witnesses are David Oderberg, Michael Frohlich, Anne Atkins and Julian Savulescu.

Paper presented by Julian Savulescu at the MT16 Oxford-Valencia Neuroethics Workshop. Exploring various themes in neuroethics, the MT16 Oxford-Valencia Neuroethics showcased the wealth of philosophical research at Valencia and Oxford.

I have a dilemma. It is this; almost all of my ethics are a bunch of poorly thought out lies and assumptions. What am I going to do about it? Perhaps I should ask the Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics from Oxford, Professor Julian Savulescu. My ethics are crap. Your ethics are probably crap too. If you think your ethics are definitely not crap then the aforementioned probability just shot up to somewhere very near 1. If you think Ethics in Medicine are very simple, or even dull, you haven’t thought about them enough. The more you think about them the harder they get. When I was taught ethics as a student it wasn’t too inspiring. As I butted up against ethical issues as a clinician it was inspiring. How can I not care about a right to life or a right to death, a right to choose or the lack thereof?

Conscientious Objection and Value Pluralism in Medicine

Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford, gives a talk for the UBVO seminar series.

In this episode, Julian Savulescu argues that professional sports should change their regulations so as to allow for a certain amount of doping. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is sex-selection harmful or injust? Julian Savulescu outlines four methods used in sex-selection and explores the ethical issues surrounding each.

Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. In this series, Matthew asks whether the sun will rise tomorrow, whether one person should be poisoned to save five others and whether a female tennis champion deserves the same prize money as her male counterpart. This week, should we take a pill that would make us less racist and less aggressive? In the snug with Matthew is philosopher Julian Savulescu.

Special guest Walter Sinnott-Armstrong joins the podcast to explain how his theory which desperately needs a new name ("contrastivism") can dissolve most of the fundamental problems and paradoxes in philosophy.  We also talk about psychopaths--what they are and what we can do about them.  But first we read and respond to an angry piece of fan mail (ok, maybe 'fan' is not the right word) from Sam Harris, trashing us--mostly Tamler--for our comments on VBW 45 about the new atheists. LinksSam Harris debates Andrew Sullivan [samharris.org]Richard Dawkins on the harm of fairy tales (read until the end) [telegraph.co.uk]Walter Sinnott-Armtrong's Home Page [duke.edu]Sinnott‐Armstrong, W. (2008). A contrastivist manifesto. Social Epistemology, 22(3), 257-270. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (2006) It's not my fault: Global warming and individual moral obligations. Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources 5, 285-307.The Memory of Jurors: Enhancing Trial Performance by Anders Sandberg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Julian Savulescu. Special Guest: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

Voluntary palliated starvation

Home births are slightly more risky than hospital births, so does this mean it's immoral for women to have one?Lachlan de Crespigny and obstetrician and gynechologist from the University of Melbourne, and Julian Savulescu, from the faculty of philosophy at the University of Oxford join the JME podcast to discuss.

From genetic engineering to bioscience, human beings are close to acquiring the ability not just to combat disease, but to enhance and perfect our species. But should we seek to do it, or should we shy away from a path that led to Nazi eugenics? Hardtalk speaks to the Australian born, Oxford based medical ethicist Julian Savulescu. Can we trust ourselves to be wise masters of our own biology?

The Possibility of Religious-Secular Ethical Engagement: Euthanasia. Julian Savulescu and Charles Camosy held two public debates in Michaelmas Term 2012 under the series title 'The Possibility of Religious-Secular Ethical Engagement'.

Julian Savulescu believes that if we can genetically alter the next generation, not only should we be free to do so, it may even turn out that in some circumstances we have an obligation to go ahead and do it. The term 'designer baby' is usually used in a pejorative sense - to conjure up some dystopian Brave New World. There are already ways to affect what kind of children you have - most obviously by choosing the partner to have them with. But there are others too: a pregnant mother can improve her baby's prospects by not smoking, for instance. With advances in genetics, however, there will soon be radical new methods to select or influence the characteristics of your progeny: not just physical characteristics, like height or eye colour, but intellectual capacities, and capacities linked to morality - such as how empathetic the child will be. The big question is how much freedom parents should have to make such selections.

In Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement (OUP, forthcoming 2012) Julian Savulescu and I argue that in order to solve the greatest moral problems of the present time, like anthropogenic climate and environmental deterioration and global inequality, it is necessary to morally enhance human beings, not only by traditional means but also, if possible, by biomedical means. Some, like John Harris, have replied that moral enhancement by biomedical means would undercut our freedom and, so, would not really increase our moral value. I believe that this objection is mistaken, that these means would undercut neither our freedom nor our rationality. However, what I shall mainly discuss in my presentation is a reply which grants that this is so, that genuine moral enhancement could be produced by biomedical means. What I shall discuss is Nicholas Agar's argument in Humanity's End (MIT, 2010) to the effect that it is morally permissible for human beings to prevent the creation of morally enhanced people because this could harm the interests of the unenhanced. I argue that this argument fails because it overlooks the distinction between morally permissible and impermissible harm. The harm that the enhanced would cause the unenhanced would be permissible harm, and it is not permissible to prevent such harm.

Is it ethical to select advantageous genes and select against disadvantageous genes when having babies? Julian Savulescu, Director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics in Oxford, discusses this question with Nigel Warburton. This bonus episode was originally made for Bioethics Bites in association with the Uehiro Centre and made possible by a grant from the Wellcome Trust.

Can racism be treated with heart drugs? A recent study suggests so. Does this mean that we can alter a person's moral values with drugs? And what other possibilities are there for engineering the human condition? We ask Julian Savulescu.

On Start the Week Andrew Marr asks if sport still embodies a notion of fair play and Corinthian spirit, or whether it has become mired in corruption, money and celebrity. Mihir Bose argues that sport is no longer just a game, but has become one of the most powerful political tools in the world. The social historian Janie Hampton looks back to a time when amateur wasn't a dirty word, while Brian Moore the 'pitbull' of the scrum, looks back at a disastrous year for the professionalism of English rugby. The philosopher Julian Savulescu believes the nostalgia for the age of the amateur is blinding people to the reality of today, and that far from penalising those who take performance enhancing drugs, we should merely set a safe limit and allow free rein. Producer: Katy Hickman.

Nigel Warburton interviews Julian Savulescu on the topic of moral enhancement.

The term 'designer baby' is usually used in a pejorative sense - to conjure up some dystopian Brave New World. There are already ways to affect what kind of children you have - most obviously by choosing the partner to have them with. But there are others too: a pregnant mother can improve her baby's prospects by not smoking, for instance. With advances in genetics, however, there will soon be radical new methods to select or influence the characteristics of your progeny: not just physical characteristics, like height or eye colour, but intellectual capacities, and capacities linked to morality - such as how empathetic the child will be. The big question is how much freedom parents should have to make such selections. Julian Savulescu of Oxford's Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, believes that if we can genetically alter the next generation, not only should we be free to do so, it may even turn out that in some circumstances we have an obligation to go ahead and so it.

This Oxford at Said seminar was dedicated to the topic of Ageing. Three distinguished academics from Oxford University discuss the social, biological and ethical implications for an ageing society. For the foreseeable future, population ageing is irreversible and will fundamentally affect all areas of life from the workplace to the family. Sarah Harper outlines the most important social consequences of population ageing and discuss potential policy implications. Lynne Cox explains current research strategies to find the genetic drivers of ageing which might eventually help us to slow the ageing process and Julian Savulescu finishes the seminar by discussing his manifesto on 'Why we need a war on ageing' arguing that mankind has a moral obligation to strive for a longer and better life.

Julian Savulescu and the other Monash Distinguished Alumni discuss how Monash University has influenced their careers.

Should we base our morality on our emotional reactions of disgust? We all have a sense of 'yuk' at some activities or situations. Julian Savulescu of Oxford University discusses the relevance of revulsion to our moral judgements in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

Professor Julian Savulescu, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, talks about the current and future issues in applied ethics, particularly of the new biosciences.

Professor Julian Savulescu, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, talks about the current and future issues in applied ethics, particularly of the new biosciences.

An Australian-born University of Oxford ethicist, who argued for allowing drugs in sport, speaks on the controversial ethics of cloning, stem-cell research and human enhancement. Professor Savulescu argues that a "new science", which uses radical techniques such as genetic engineering, is needed in order to enhance people's lives rather than just prevent and treat disease. For further info and speaker's biography see this page: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1848