Podcast appearances and mentions of kimberley brownlee

As climate impacts intensify and governments continue to delay action, more people are turning to protest, disruption, and civil disobedience to demand change. But when laws uphold injustice, is breaking them not only justified — but necessary? Today's guest is Dr. Kimberley Brownlee, Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political and Social Philosophy at the University of British Columbia. She is also the author of several books, including Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience. Kimberley explains what civil disobedience is and presents her argument for why it is a moral right and, sometimes, a duty. We also discuss debates on civil disobedience and climate change prompted by the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline and reflect on the current political climate.   Pullback is a proud member of the Harbinger Media Network Enjoy our work? Support us on Patreon!

Is Vancouver a lonely, unfriendly city? Is it doomed to be? This is VANCOLOUR host Mo Amir asks loneliness and belonging expert Kimberley Brownlee for her insights and advice on making social connections in a city that feels unfriendly.Recorded: January 20, 2025

Guest: Prof. Kimberley Brownlee, Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political & Social Philosophy at UBC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How fandom rituals contribute to feelings of belonging Guest: Prof. Kimberley Brownlee, Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political & Social Philosophy at UBC People living near transit hubs are worried about higher property taxes Guest: Paul Sullivan, a partner at RYAN, a global tax service, software and technology provider. Holiday Helpers: Canadian organization Shelter Moves Guest: Jessie Kaur, Vancouver Chapter Director of Shelter Movers Kitsilano caved in roof finally collapses Guest: Ashley Vaughn, Neighbour who alerted authorities Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kimberley Brownlee, Disobedience: The Rarest And Most Courageous Of The Virtues by Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto

Professor Kimberley Brownlee is a philosopher. She holds the Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political & Social Philosophy at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Prior to that, she lived in the UK for close to 20 years and was a professor at the University of Warwick and senior lecturer at the University of Manchester. Her work focuses on loneliness, belonging, social human rights, punishment, conscientious belief, and civil disobedience. She is the author of two books: Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience, and of Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms. She has engaged with senior management teams in UK prisons who are working to improve the ways they speak - and think - about the people in their care. 

  Social Rights and Freedoms  - Professor Kimberley Brownlee discusses social deprivation, what it means to belong and moral messiness.

Kimberley Brownlee, a professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, has written a monograph addressing her argument in favor a right against social deprivation.  In Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms (Oxford UP, 2020), Professor Brownlee contends that all humans have basic needs for human interaction. Since such needs are fundamental for survival, they should be regarded as a human right. Social interaction is not a right to “love” or “friendship”, but rather a right to basic opportunities to interact with other humans. Although Professor Brownlee's argument is most easily applicable to institutional settings wherein people are frequently deprived of human interaction, such as solitary confinement in prisons or isolation in hospitals, this right is generally applicable to a wide array of contexts in which people find themselves isolated from others. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kimberley Brownlee, a professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, has written a monograph addressing her argument in favor a right against social deprivation.  In Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms (Oxford UP, 2020), Professor Brownlee contends that all humans have basic needs for human interaction. Since such needs are fundamental for survival, they should be regarded as a human right. Social interaction is not a right to “love” or “friendship”, but rather a right to basic opportunities to interact with other humans. Although Professor Brownlee’s argument is most easily applicable to institutional settings wherein people are frequently deprived of human interaction, such as solitary confinement in prisons or isolation in hospitals, this right is generally applicable to a wide array of contexts in which people find themselves isolated from others. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kimberley Brownlee, a professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, has written a monograph addressing her argument in favor a right against social deprivation.  In Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms (Oxford UP, 2020), Professor Brownlee contends that all humans have basic needs for human interaction. Since such needs are fundamental for survival, they should be regarded as a human right. Social interaction is not a right to “love” or “friendship”, but rather a right to basic opportunities to interact with other humans. Although Professor Brownlee’s argument is most easily applicable to institutional settings wherein people are frequently deprived of human interaction, such as solitary confinement in prisons or isolation in hospitals, this right is generally applicable to a wide array of contexts in which people find themselves isolated from others. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kimberley Brownlee, a professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, has written a monograph addressing her argument in favor a right against social deprivation.  In Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms (Oxford UP, 2020), Professor Brownlee contends that all humans have basic needs for human interaction. Since such needs are fundamental for survival, they should be regarded as a human right. Social interaction is not a right to “love” or “friendship”, but rather a right to basic opportunities to interact with other humans. Although Professor Brownlee’s argument is most easily applicable to institutional settings wherein people are frequently deprived of human interaction, such as solitary confinement in prisons or isolation in hospitals, this right is generally applicable to a wide array of contexts in which people find themselves isolated from others. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Once again we’re joined by Kimberley Brownlee to talk about the necessity of Social Rights being a rock-bottom human right. We need each other and we need to be needed so that we might become fully human. Last week we discussed how Social Rights should have priority as human rights in the same way that …

This is the first of two conversations I had with Kimberley Brownlee about her recent book Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms. Brownlee writes that our social needs are so fundamental, basic, and universal, that they lead us necessarily into the territory of human rights. Meeting our social needs …

In Australia, vegan and animal liberation activism has recently become intense and disruptive, invading farms, restaurants, and city centers. They’re doing everything from rescuing animals to blocking traffic, and occupying steakhouses. Some argue that these new activists are needlessly victimizing innocent farmers, business owners, and consumers. Others argue that the activists are only doing what’s necessary to stand up for the innocent victims of farmers, business owners, and consumers. For any cause, when change does not seem to happen, or happen quickly enough, movements can turn to more confrontational styles of protests, or “uncivil disobedience.” Is this morally defensible, or is civility a must in any kind of protest?  Guest voices include Kimberley Brownlee, Chris Delforce, Candice Delmas, Lauren Gazzola, Paula Hough, David Jochinke, Joanne Lee, Brian Leiter, Clare McCausland, Tyler Paytas, Jacy Reese, Jeff Sebo, and Peter Singer. For Slate Plus, there is full bonus companion episode featuring Barry talking with Stephen Metcalf of Slate Culture Gabfest about the philosophical issues raised in the episode. Both Barry and Stephen try to come to terms with whether they think we can separate the morality of activist tactics with the morality of their causes. Sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Australia, vegan and animal liberation activism has recently become intense and disruptive, invading farms, restaurants, and city centers. They’re doing everything from rescuing animals to blocking traffic, and occupying steakhouses. Some argue that these new activists are needlessly victimizing innocent farmers, business owners, and consumers. Others argue that the activists are only doing what’s necessary to stand up for the innocent victims of farmers, business owners, and consumers. For any cause, when change does not seem to happen, or happen quickly enough, movements can turn to more confrontational styles of protests, or “uncivil disobedience.” Is this morally defensible, or is civility a must in any kind of protest?  Guest voices include Kimberley Brownlee, Chris Delforce, Candice Delmas, Lauren Gazzola, Paula Hough, David Jochinke, Joanne Lee, Brian Leiter, Clare McCausland, Tyler Paytas, Jacy Reese, Jeff Sebo, and Peter Singer. This episode brought to you by Dave's Killer Bread. Click to read stories of second chances and for a special offer.  For Slate Plus, there is full bonus companion episode featuring Barry talking with Stephen Metcalf of Slate Culture Gabfest about the philosophical issues raised in the episode. Both Barry and Stephen try to come to terms with whether they think we can separate the morality of activist tactics with the morality of their causes. Sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/civil-disobedience. Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so. But how can democratic society function if each person's conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed? When is civil disobedience justified? When is it required? How does the concept fit with the great ethical and political philosophies? John and Ken discuss the ethics of protest and punishment with Kimberley Brownlee from the University of Manchester.

We are a highly social species: we need human contact. But do we have a right to it? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Kimberley Brownlee suggests that this is an ingredient in a minimally decent human life...

When confronted with a law that they find morally unconscionable, citizens sometimes engage in civil disobedience – they publicly break the law with a view to communicating their judgment that it is unjust. Citizens in similar situations sometimes take a different stance – they engage in conscientious objection, they quietly disobey, seeking only to keep their own conscience clear. A common view of these matters has it that the conscientious objector is deserving of special respect, and even accommodation, whereas the civil disobedient engages in a politically risky and morally questionable practice. In her new book, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (Oxford University Press, 2012) Kimberley Brownlee reverses this picture. She contends that properly-conducted civil disobedience is more deserving of accommodation and respect than conscientious objection. Her case turns on a detailed and subtle analysis of the very concepts of conviction and conscience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When confronted with a law that they find morally unconscionable, citizens sometimes engage in civil disobedience – they publicly break the law with a view to communicating their judgment that it is unjust. Citizens in similar situations sometimes take a different stance – they engage in conscientious objection, they quietly disobey, seeking only to keep their own conscience clear. A common view of these matters has it that the conscientious objector is deserving of special respect, and even accommodation, whereas the civil disobedient engages in a politically risky and morally questionable practice. In her new book, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (Oxford University Press, 2012) Kimberley Brownlee reverses this picture. She contends that properly-conducted civil disobedience is more deserving of accommodation and respect than conscientious objection. Her case turns on a detailed and subtle analysis of the very concepts of conviction and conscience.

When confronted with a law that they find morally unconscionable, citizens sometimes engage in civil disobedience – they publicly break the law with a view to communicating their judgment that it is unjust. Citizens in similar situations sometimes take a different stance – they engage in conscientious objection, they quietly disobey, seeking only to keep their own conscience clear. A common view of these matters has it that the conscientious objector is deserving of special respect, and even accommodation, whereas the civil disobedient engages in a politically risky and morally questionable practice. In her new book, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (Oxford University Press, 2012) Kimberley Brownlee reverses this picture. She contends that properly-conducted civil disobedience is more deserving of accommodation and respect than conscientious objection. Her case turns on a detailed and subtle analysis of the very concepts of conviction and conscience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When confronted with a law that they find morally unconscionable, citizens sometimes engage in civil disobedience – they publicly break the law with a view to communicating their judgment that it is unjust. Citizens in similar situations sometimes take a different stance – they engage in conscientious objection, they quietly disobey, seeking only to keep their own conscience clear. A common view of these matters has it that the conscientious objector is deserving of special respect, and even accommodation, whereas the civil disobedient engages in a politically risky and morally questionable practice. In her new book, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (Oxford University Press, 2012) Kimberley Brownlee reverses this picture. She contends that properly-conducted civil disobedience is more deserving of accommodation and respect than conscientious objection. Her case turns on a detailed and subtle analysis of the very concepts of conviction and conscience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices