Podcasts about oxford uehiro centre

Responsible AI Governance involves ongoing monitoring and evaluation of AI systems to identify and address potential risks. This proactive approach helps organizations manage risks related to bias, security, and unintended consequences. But why is RAI Governance important and why does it matter? How can one get started when you want to build RAI Governance control functions and mechanisms in your organization? And what are the best-practices and tips for RAI governance? Dr. Ben Lange is a Research Group Lead in the Ethics of AI at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich and Munich Center for Machine Learning. He holds an Associate Researcher Position at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford and a Visiting Research Fellowship at the Zentrum für Ethik und Philosophie in der Praxis. In the past, he was a Visiting Researcher at Google's Responsible Innovation team. Ben received his PhD in Moral Philosophy from the University of Oxford. In his capacity as an ethics advisor and as a Senior Advisor at BABLAI, Ben has deep expertise in the whole suite of organizational ethics consulting, including AI ethics and digital ethics, corporate social and digital responsibility (CSR & CDR), and ethics and compliance.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Aristotle's ideas on what happiness means and how to live a good life. Aristotle (384-322BC) explored these almost two and a half thousand years ago in what became known as his Nicomachean Ethics. His audience then were the elite in Athens as, he argued, if they knew how to live their lives well then they could better rule the lives of others. While circumstances and values have changed across the centuries, Aristotle's approach to answering those questions has fascinated philosophers ever since and continues to do so.With Angie Hobbs Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of SheffieldRoger Crisp Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Professor of Moral Philosophy and Tutor in Philosophy at St Anne's College, University of OxfordAnd Sophia Connell Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of LondonProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher (Oxford University Press, 1981)Aristotle (ed. and trans. Roger Crisp), Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2000)Aristotle (trans. Terence Irwin), Nicomachean Ethics (Hackett Publishing Co., 2019) Aristotle (trans. H. Rackham), Nicomachean Ethics: Loeb Classical Library (William Heinemann Ltd, 1962)Jonathan Barnes, Aristotle: Past Masters series (Oxford University Press, 1982) Gerard J. Hughes, Routledge Guidebook to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Routledge, 2013)Richard Kraut (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005)Michael Pakaluk, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2005)A. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (University of California Press, 1981) Nancy Sherman, The Fabric of Character: Aristotle's Theory of Virtue (Clarendon Press, 1989)J.O. Urmson, Aristotle's Ethics (John Wiley & Sons, 1988)

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Aristotle's ideas on what happiness means and how to live a good life. Aristotle (384-322BC) explored these almost two and a half thousand years ago in what became known as his Nicomachean Ethics. His audience then were the elite in Athens as, he argued, if they knew how to live their lives well then they could better rule the lives of others. While circumstances and values have changed across the centuries, Aristotle's approach to answering those questions has fascinated philosophers ever since and continues to do so.With Angie Hobbs Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of SheffieldRoger Crisp Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Professor of Moral Philosophy and Tutor in Philosophy at St Anne's College, University of OxfordAnd Sophia Connell Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of LondonProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher (Oxford University Press, 1981)Aristotle (ed. and trans. Roger Crisp), Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2000)Aristotle (trans. Terence Irwin), Nicomachean Ethics (Hackett Publishing Co., 2019) Aristotle (trans. H. Rackham), Nicomachean Ethics: Loeb Classical Library (William Heinemann Ltd, 1962)Jonathan Barnes, Aristotle: Past Masters series (Oxford University Press, 1982) Gerard J. Hughes, Routledge Guidebook to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Routledge, 2013)Richard Kraut (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005)Michael Pakaluk, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2005)A. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (University of California Press, 1981) Nancy Sherman, The Fabric of Character: Aristotle's Theory of Virtue (Clarendon Press, 1989)J.O. Urmson, Aristotle's Ethics (John Wiley & Sons, 1988)

The term nudge has become a byword for the application of behavioural science in public policy, changing how governments the world over create policies designed to encourage, or nudge, people to make choices that better benefit themselves and society as a whole. Over the last fifteen years much has been learned about what works, as well as what doesn't, when it comes to this way of supporting us in making decisions about our health, our money and how we lead our lives. Magda Osman is Principal Research Associate at the Cambridge Judge Business School, The University of Cambridge, and Visiting Professor at Leeds University Business School. Through her work she has examined the problems, and the opportunities, with this way of creating policy. She talks to those working in the field of behavioural change and examines what has been discovered over the last fifteen years, what concerns remain around this way of doing things and what the future is for the behavioural change methods known as nudge. Presenter: Professor Magda Osman Producer: Steven Hobson Editor: Clare Fordham Contributors: Dr Michael Hallsworth, Managing Director, Behavioural Insights Team Americas Colin Strong, Head of Behavioural Science, Ipsos and Professor of Consumer and Behavioural Psychology, Nottingham University Business School Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman, Ogilvy Laura Dodsworth, author and journalist Professor Neil Levy, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford Katy Milkman, James G. Dinan Professor, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Transhumanists Elise Bohan, Prof. Steve Fuller and Anders Sandberg share their thoughts on the future of humanity, the role artificial intelligence will play in society, and the radical ways advanced technology may redefine what it means to be human. Recorded in front of a live audience at Kings Place, London on 16 February 2023. Elise Bohan is a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute (FHI). She holds a PhD in evolutionary macrohistory, wrote the world's first book-length history of transhumanism as a doctoral student, and recently launched her debut book Future Superhuman: Our transhuman lives in a make-or-break century (NewSouth, 2022). Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on ‘Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Anders Sandberg is a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at Oxford University where his research focuses on the societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technologies. He is also research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. Find out more: futurespodcast.net FOLLOW Twitter: twitter.com/futurespodcast Instagram: instagram.com/futurespodcast Facebook: facebook.com/futurespodcast ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. Follow him on Twitter: twitter.com/lukerobertmason CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason

As the UK's independent public inquiry into Covid-19 gets underway, members of the Covid bereaved complain that they are not being given an opportunity to testify. Today, in the second part of our two-part special, Mark speaks to the parents of Susan Sullivan, a woman with Down's Syndrome who died of Covid-19 at Barnet General Hospital on March 28, 2020, after being deemed “not for resuscitation” and he reveals the findings of a confidential investigation by the Royal Free NHS Hospital Trust into her death. The report, which makes for shocking reading, found that Susan was not seen by a consultant until 20 hours after admission to Barnet's Accident and Emergency department and that the fact that she had Down's Syndrome and had been fitted with a pacemaker should not have excluded her from intensive care. Mark also speaks to Kamran Mallick, the CEO of Disability Rights UK, about what the Sullivan case reveals about the pattern of discrimination experienced by people with learning disabilities across the NHS, and to Dominic Wilkinson, a medical ethicist, who explains the challenge to doctors of weighing the harms and benefits of invasive procedures to patients. Presented by Mark Honigsbaum @honigsbaum With: John and Ida Sullivan  www.covidfamiliesforjustice.org / @CovidJusticeuk  Kamran Mallick, CEO of Disability Rights UK. www.disabilityrights.uk  / @KamranMallick Professor Dominic Wilkinson @NeonatalEthics Professor of Medical Ethics and Director of Medical Ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Dominic is also a Consultant Neonatologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College.  www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/about-jesus-college/our-community/people/professor-dominic-wilkinson/  Series Producer: Melissa FitzGerald @Melissafitzg Cover art by Patrick Blower  www.blowercartoons.com Follow us on Twitter: @GoingViral_pod     Follow us on Instagram: goingviral_thepodcast  Blog: markhonigsbaum.substack.com  This episode of Going Viral has been produced with the support of a grant from the Higher Education Innovation Fund at City, University of London. It is part of the project, “Commemorating Covid, Remembering Pandemics”, www.rememberingpandemics.com If you enjoy our podcast - please leave us a rating or review.  Thank you!

Neil is a professor of philosophy with research interests spanning philosophy of mind, psychology, free will, moral responsibility, epistemology & applied ethics. He is Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics & professor of philosophy at Macquarie University, Sydney. From 2010, he was head of neuroethics at the Florey Institutes of Neuroscience in Melbourne. He has written many papers & books, including “Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People“. In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “who matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube. We discuss: 00:00 Welcome - Is Neil a #Sentientist ? 02:05 Neil's Intro - Perpetual winters between Oxford & Sydney - Philsophy of applied ethics, free will, epistemology - Neil's episode on #DecodingTheGurus re: intellectual virtue signalling 03:55 What's Real? - Brought up #jewish "very much a cultural thing... synagogue twice a year" in #southafrica Africa - Jewish Saturday school - Moving to #Australia & attending religious school - At 11-12 "This doesn't make much sense to me - this god business. I've been a convinced #atheist ever since" - "Being religious can be perfectly reasonable" - Subjective rationality "how well are you processing your evidence given where you are?" - "People are much more rational than we think... even #QAnon supporters... they're completely wrong... but if they believe what they're saying... they're rational given where they start" - #Trolling & #bullshit - "We've got lots of evidence people don't believe what they're saying" - #Determinism & #freewill & "the epistemic condition on responsibility"... "nobody does have that kind of control over their beliefs... they've done the best they can with the evidence available to them" - "Criticism comes cheap... so does praise" - "Luck explains so much" constitutive & present luck - "It gives us more to do... of the sort of things philosophers aren't good at" - Teaching critical thinking, logic, fallacies "people get better... but they don't get better at using it outside the classroom" - "In the classroom I give you evidence... they stipulate it... you just accept it"... "But in the real world you're faced with the continual problem... should I trust the evidence?" - A key reason people don't update beliefs given new evidence is because "they just don't trust the evidence in the first place... and you can formally model why they shouldn't... given what they already believe" - The "capital punishment views" experiment - "If somebody shows me a prima facie plausible study showing that... all dogs have 5 legs... I'm going to think... that it's bullshit" - Bayesianism - Gullibility, dogmatism, #skepticism - #QAnon , #Antivaxx , #homeopathy ...and much more. Full show notes at Sentientism.info. 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!

From the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the British Government made it clear that a baseline level of mortality from Covid was being “priced in” to its decision making: on March 12th 2020, Boris Johnson stopped short of ordering the sort of lockdowns seen in other countries and warned that, “many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.” This approach belied a series of value judgements and trade-offs where people's lives were set against other values, such as personal liberty and the economy. Today Mark and his guests Anjana Ahuja, Martin McKee and Dominic Wilkinson, reappraise this approach. With Ceinwen Giles and Matt Fowler. Produced in collaboration with the UK Pandemic Ethics Accelerator. Presented by Mark Honigsbaum @honigsbaum With: Anjana Ahuja  Contributing writer on science for the Financial Times and co-author of the bestselling ‘Spike: The Virus Vs The People' - the inside story of the Covid-19 pandemic with Sir Jeremy Farrar. https://www.ft.com/anjana-ahuja  /  @anjahuja Ceinwen Giles Co-CEO of Shine Cancer Support, member of the General Advisory Council of The King's Fund and Chair of the Patient and Public Voices Forum for the NHS England Cancer Programme. www.shinecancersupport.org / @ceineken Professor Martin McKee Professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Martin is Research Director of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and he's published many scientific papers and books on health and health policy, with a particular focus on countries undergoing political and social transition. www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/people/mckee.martin / @martinmckee Matt Fowler Co-Founder of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice. www.jrct.org.uk/covid-19-bereaved-families  / @CovidJusticeUK Professor Dominic Wilkinson Professor of Medical Ethics and Director of Medical Ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Dominic is also a Consultant Neonatologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College. He is one the editors of a forthcoming book with Oxford University Press on pandemic ethics. www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/about-jesus-college/our-community/people/professor-dominic-wilkinson/ / @NeonatalEthics Series Producer: Melissa FitzGerald @Melissafitzg Co-producer: Kate Jopling  @katejopling Cover art by Patrick Blower. www.blowercartoons.com Follow us on Twitter: @GoingViral_pod     Follow us on Instagram: goingviral_thepodcast  This episode of Going Viral on trust in the pandemic, has been produced in collaboration with the UK Pandemic Ethics Accelerator. The Ethics Accelerator was funded by the UKRI Covid-19 research and innovation fund.  https://ukpandemicethics.org/   /  @PandemicEthics_ If you enjoy our podcast - please leave us a rating or review.  Thank you!  

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Neil Levy is Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. He is a wide-ranging philosopher, working principally at the intersection of philosophy of mind and psychology and ethics. He is the author of several books, including Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People. In this episode, we focus on Bad Beliefs. We start by discussing what are rational beliefs, and concepts like higher-order evidence, and the epistemic environment. We discuss why sometimes people express beliefs they don't really hold. We talk about how levels of intelligence and education predispose people to holding inaccurate beliefs, and the role played by political ideology. We talk about individual cognition, group deliberation, and knowledge as a social phenomenon. We ask if the “solitary genius” is a myth, and if people really have “belief systems”. We talk about belief revision, and how beliefs are shallow. We discuss the social and institutional cues on which beliefs depend. We also get into virtue epistemology, critical thinking, and nudging. Finally, we discuss if people respond to evidence, and if humans are rational. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, TRADERINNYC, TODD SHACKELFORD, AND SUNNY SMITH! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, AND NUNO ELDER! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Misinformation, disinformation, fake news, alternative facts: we are awash in a vast sea of epistemically questionable, not to mention false, testimony. How can we discern what is epistemically good to believe from what is not? Why are so many of us vulnerable to believing in ways that are unresponsive to widely available evidence – in other words, to holding bad beliefs?  In Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (Oxford UP, 2021), Neil Levy argues that we are in fact acting rationally, in accordance with how we have evolved to defer to our peers and authorities in our social networks. Levy, who is Professor of philosophy at Macquarie University and research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that bad beliefs are more likely in epistemically polluted environments, and that our current epistemic environments are badly polluted. Overall, the book takes a bold stand against the traditional epistemological emphasis on the individual cognitive agent's responsibility for justifying belief. This book is available open access here.  Carrie Figdor is professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa.

Kelly chats with Professor Julian Savulescu, Director at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.

I denne episoden snakker Lars med Aksel Braanen Sterri om hans erfaringer fra den offentlige debatten, tiden i Dagbladet, og hva konsekvensetisk tenkning kan bidra med i skoledebatten. Hvordan kan vi på best mulig måte både sikre velferdsstaten og gi alle barn en god skolehverdag? Hva mener vi egentlig med ord som sjanselikhet, meritokrati og sosial mobilitet? Kan skolepolitikerne lage en enda bedre skole, eller bør de snarere sikte på å gjøre det mulig for enkeltskoler å gjøre dette arbeidet? Og hvorfor er privatskoler dårlig stilt til å gi oss de skolene vi trenger i fremtiden?  Aksel er for tiden postdoc ved Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics og OsloMet. Du finner lenker til Aksels publikasjoner på https://akselsterri.no/ For mer om mange av de tema som vi drøfter i episoden, les Lars' skriverier om skolen på bloggen hans, https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/, og hør på tidligere episoder av podkasten.    ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info.  ----------------------------  Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss.  Både Lars og Pål skriver nå på hver sin blogg, med litt varierende regelmessighet. Du finner dem på disse nettsidene: https://paljabekk.com/ https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/ Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Everyone who enters the medical field does so altruistically, standing steadfast against the ever present threat of death and disease.  But as any doctor knows, there are limits to what they can do. At a certain point, the goal shifts from curative to palliative care.  At this stage, the goal is no longer to save a life, but to relieve suffering as best as possible.  How to do so, and the point at which suffering becomes worse than death, is highly contested.  A growing movement of doctors, nurses, and ethicists argue that patients should be empowered in the face of this impossible choice.  They argue that just as a patient has a right to choose how to live, they should also choose how and when to die.  They argue it is ethically and morally shortsighted to keep suffering patients alive at all costs, and that euthanisia and physician assisted suicide are a mercy, not a crime.  But others in the field argue that life is far too sacred to place in anyone's hands, doctor or patient.  Even on the brink of death, lives have meaning and must be preserved.  They argue that the oath that doctors take forbid them from making these types of decisions regardless of the state of their patient.  And that those that advocate for physician assisted suicide are doing their patience, and themselves, a massive disservice. Arguing for the motion is Dominic Wilkinson, Dominic Wilkinson is Director of Medical Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. He is a consultant in newborn intensive care at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. Arguing against the motion is E. Wesley Ely, American physician and professor of medicine as the Grant W. Liddle Endowed Chair at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Dominic Wilkinson: “It's time to be honest and consistent about end of life choice. People have the right to choose how and when to die”. Wes Ely: “If you tell me why you ought to respect a patient's autonomy, I'll tell you why you ought not kill that person”. Sources: CBC, ABC News, CBS Evening News, PBS News Hour 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: Jacob Lewis Editor: Reza Dahya Associate Producer: Abhi Raheja

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. Anders Sandberg is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. He is a senior research fellow on the ERC UnPrEDICT Programme, and a research associate to the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. He holds a PhD in computational neuroscience from Stockholm University, and his research focuses on existential risks and long-term societal and ethical facets of new technology regarding human enhancement. Existential risks are risks that deal with the end of something — in this case, the end of humanity and Earth-originating intelligent life. As Prof. Sandberg explains, the most dire of risks lead to a lot of interesting implications and there are many interesting links that bridge different risks. Understanding those linkages are interesting and useful in discovering what the risks are, and also what we can do about it. Risks are broadly classified into anthropogenic (in this sense, self-inflicted) and external (natural). In this episode of Policy Punchline, we discuss both types of risks, and why we should really care. After all, there is a low probability of this kind of existential risk occurring in our lifetime, and we have a fairly resilient infrastructure already in place. As Prof. Sandberg points out, “you can motivate the badness of existential risk in quite a lot of ways, both consequentialist and non-consequentialist”. The conversation then turns to utilitarianism and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the thought process and awareness of the field. Animal welfare (including humans) is brought up, and also the subject of human enhancement. Technological enhancements seem inevitable in the future, and, going back to anthropogenic risks, how this affects the future of humanity is a nuanced topic. We hope you enjoy listening to an episode on existential risks and utility, a subject that concerns all of us. The pandemic has brought increased attention to how vulnerable humans could actually be to unforeseen threats to our existence, and we hope this interview provokes thought with regards to the future of humanity.

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

From ethics in healthcare policy, to the architecture of home-based working, to supporting the live music industry, arts and humanities research has made a big contribution to meeting policy challenges posed by the pandemic. One year on from the start of the pandemic, the Institute for Government, in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), was delighted to bring together a panel of researchers from across the arts and humanities to discuss the ways in which Covid-19 has changed their work and shifted their priorities. Arts and humanities research is at the forefront of efforts to understand the longer term social, cultural, and economic effects of the pandemic, as well as helping to shape a range of immediate policy responses.On our panel to discuss these issues were:Dr Adam Behr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary and Popular Music at Newcastle UniversityDr Rebecca Brown, Career Development Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Research Associate, Wadham College, University of OxfordDr Frances Holliss, Emeritus Reader in Architecture at London Metropolitan UniversityDr Sabrina Germain, Senior Lecturer in Law at City, University of LondonThe event was chaired by Dr Alice Lilly, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government.We are grateful for the support of AHRC in staging this event.#IfGHumanities See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From ethics in healthcare policy, to the architecture of home-based working, to supporting the live music industry, arts and humanities research has made a big contribution to meeting policy challenges posed by the pandemic. One year on from the start of the pandemic, the Institute for Government, in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), was delighted to bring together a panel of researchers from across the arts and humanities to discuss the ways in which Covid-19 has changed their work and shifted their priorities. Arts and humanities research is at the forefront of efforts to understand the longer term social, cultural, and economic effects of the pandemic, as well as helping to shape a range of immediate policy responses. On our panel to discuss these issues were: Dr Adam Behr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary and Popular Music at Newcastle University Dr Rebecca Brown, Career Development Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Research Associate, Wadham College, University of Oxford Dr Frances Holliss, Emeritus Reader in Architecture at London Metropolitan University Dr Sabrina Germain, Senior Lecturer in Law at City, University of London. The event was chaired by Dr Alice Lilly, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government. We are grateful for the support of AHRC in staging this event.

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.

It's a question that's on the lips of politicians, scientists and policy-makers right across the globe - who should get the COVID-19 vaccine first? Should it be the elderly and clinically vulnerable, healthcare professionals and other frontline workers, or another group entirely? We chat to Dr Alberto Giubilini, a philosopher at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, about why this decision is so ethically complicated. 

Is it possible to edit someone's genes before they are born to make them a nicer, kinder, more moral person? Not only that - but, importantly, should we do this? When it comes to gene editing for moral enhancement, there are many ethical points to consider. Join us as we chat to Tess Johnson, a Philosophy PhD student at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, about this very big question.

This event is also part of the Humanities Cultural Programme, one of the founding stones for the future Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities. How can AI systems influence our decision-making in ways that undermine autonomy? Do they do so in new or more problematic ways? To what extent can we outsource tasks to AI systems without losing our autonomy? Do we need a new conception of autonomy that incorporates considerations of the digital self? Autonomy is a core value in contemporary Western societies – it is a value that is invoked across a range of debates in practical ethics, and it lies at the heart of liberal democratic theory. It is therefore no surprise that AI policy documents frequently champion the importance of ensuring the protection of human autonomy. At first glance, this sort of protection may appear unnecessary – after all, in some ways, it seems that AI systems can serve to significantly enhance our autonomy. They can give us more information upon which to base our choices, and they may allow us to achieve many of our goals more effectively and efficiently. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that AI systems do pose a number of threats to our autonomy. One (but not the only) example is the fact that they enable the pervasive and covert use of manipulative and deceptive techniques that aim to target and exploit well-documented vulnerabilities in our decision-making. This raises the question of whether it is possible to harness the considerable power of AI to improve our lives in a manner that is compatible with respect for autonomy, and whether we need to reconceptualize both the nature and value of autonomy in the digital age. In this session, Carina Prunkl, Jessica Morley and Jonathan Pugh engage with these general questions, using the example of mHealth tools as an illuminating case study for a debate about the various ways in which an AI system can both enhance and hinder our autonomy. Speakers Dr Carina Prunkl, Research Fellow at the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford (where she is one of the inaugural team); also Research Affiliate at the Centre for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute. Carina works on the ethics and governance of AI, with a particular focus on autonomy, and has both publicly advocated and published on the importance of accountability mechanisms for AI. Jessica Morley, Policy Lead at Oxford's DataLab, leading its engagement work to encourage use of modern computational analytics in the NHS, and ensuring public trust in health data records (notably those developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic). Jess is also pursuing a related doctorate at the Oxford Internet Institute's Digital Ethics Lab. As Technical Advisor for the Department of Health and Social Care, she co-authored the NHS Code of Conduct for data-driven technologies. Dr Jonathan Pugh, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford researching on how far AI Ethics should incorporate traditional conceptions of autonomy and “moral status”. He recently led a three-year project on the ethics of experimental Deep Brain Stimulation and “neuro-hacking”, and in 2020 published Autonomy, Rationality and Contemporary Bioethics (OUP). he has written on a wide range of ethical topics, but has particular interest in issues concerning personal autonomy and informed consent. Chair Professor Peter Millican is Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford. He has researched and published over a wide range, including Early Modern Philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, Philosophy of Language and of Religion, but has a particular focus on interdisciplinary connections with Computing and AI. He founded and oversees the Oxford undergraduate degree in Computer Science and Philosophy, which has been running since 2012, and last year he instituted this ongoing series of Ethics in AI Seminars.

A discussion of the BAPM framework for practice on management of babies

In this episode, I'm speaking with Dr. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong about ethics, argumentation, and political polarization. We discuss: •How he became interested in philosophy and why ethics in particular. •How science can't answer important questions on morality, values, etc., but it certainly can be used as an ancillary apparatus to help us navigate these tough questions. •His research on various topics in ethics. •How he became interested in informal logic, argumentation, and why he decided to make his Coursera courses. •How informal logic can help you to think better and help you to identify fake news, conspiracy theories, etc. when you come across it. •That the goal of a discourse is not to win, but to get closer to truth. •How the internet is a tool that can be used for good or bad. •The history of political polarization in the U.S. and how it compares to what we're seeing today. •And other topics. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. He is core faculty in the Duke Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and has a secondary appointment in the Duke Law School. He serves as Resource Faculty in the Philosophy Department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Partner Investigator at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, and Research Scientist with The Mind Research Network in New Mexico. He has received fellowships from the Harvard Program in Ethics and the Professions, the Princeton Center for Human Values, the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Australian National University, and the Sage Center for the Study of the Mind at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has served as vice-chair of the Board of Officers of the American Philosophical Association and co-director of the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project. He earned his B.A. from Amherst College and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He has published widely on ethics (theoretical and applied as well as meta-ethics), empirical moral psychology and neuroscience, philosophy of law, epistemology, philosophy of religion, and informal logic. His articles have appeared in a variety of philosophical, scientific, and popular journals and collections. His current work is on political polarization, Scrupulosity, moral psychology and brain science as well as uses of neuroscience in legal systems. You can find his website here: https://www.sinnott-armstrong.com/ You can find his books here: Think Again: How to Reason and Argue: https://amzn.to/3gg5RNK Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic: https://amzn.to/2XgVdyD You can find his courses here: Think Again I-IV: https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments How to Argue Better: https://learning.himalaya.com/ This podcast is supported and produced by Grips VisualMarketing. Grips believes in creating something that disrupts attention spans and challenges the marketing status quo. They do this by creating high quality visual content that GRIPS your audience. You can find them on: Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/getagrip.vm/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/getagrip.vm/

We’re living in extraordinary times, where graphs and statistics are splashed across newspaper front pages, and misinformation is rife. How do we know which sources of information are reliable? How do scientific researchers go from having an idea to publishing their findings, and advising on policy? In this week’s episode of the ‘Big Questions’ podcast, we’re asking Brian Earp, a Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, ‘Should we trust scientists?’.

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."

In this talk, Prof. Peter Sandøe argues that, from an ethical viewpoint, gene editing is the best solution to produce hornless cattle. There are, however, regulatory hurdles. Presented at the workshop 'Gene Editing and Animal Welfare, 19 Nov. 2019, Oxford - organised by the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, funded by the Society for Applied Philosophy.

In this talk, Prof. Peter Sandøe argues that, from an ethical viewpoint, gene editing is the best solution to produce hornless cattle. There are, however, regulatory hurdles. Presented at the workshop 'Gene Editing and Animal Welfare, 19 Nov. 2019, Oxford - organised by the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, funded by the Society for Applied Philosophy.

Tom Douglas, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy gives the third talk in the first Ethics in AI seminar, held on November 11th 2019.

Carissa Véliz, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, gives the second talk in the first Ethics in AI seminar, held on November 11th 2019.

Tom Douglas, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy gives the third talk in the first Ethics in AI seminar, held on November 11th 2019.

Carissa Véliz, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, gives the second talk in the first Ethics in AI seminar, held on November 11th 2019.

Professor Julian Savulescu and Dr Katrien Devolder discuss the use of genetic testing to select which children to bring into the world. Should we use genetic testing to choose which children to bring into the world, and if so, how should we choose? Is it acceptable to choose a deaf child? Should we choose our children on the basis of non-disease traits such as intelligence or fitness, if we can? Does genetic selection put too much pressure on prospective parents? In this interview with Katrien Devolder (Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics), Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, defends his controversial view that we should select those children, from among the children we could have, that will have the best chance at the best life.

Professor Julian Savulescu and Dr Katrien Devolder discuss the use of genetic testing to select which children to bring into the world. Should we use genetic testing to choose which children to bring into the world, and if so, how should we choose? Is it acceptable to choose a deaf child? Should we choose our children on the basis of non-disease traits such as intelligence or fitness, if we can? Does genetic selection put too much pressure on prospective parents? In this interview with Katrien Devolder (Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics), Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, defends his controversial view that we should select those children, from among the children we could have, that will have the best chance at the best life.

Practical medical ethics symposium: Rationing responsibly in an age of austerity. Health professionals face ever expanding possibilities for medical treatment, increasing patient expectations and at the same time intense pressures to reduce healthcare costs. This leads frequently to conflicts between obligations to current patients, and others who might benefit from treatment. Is it ethical for doctors and other health professionals to engage in bedside rationing? What ethical principles should guide decisions (for example about which patients to offer intensive care admission or surgery)? Is it discriminatory to take into account disability in allocating resources? If patients are responsible for their illness, should that lead to a lower priority for treatment? In this seminar philosophers from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics will explore and shed light on the profound ethical challenges around allocating limited health care resources.

Practical medical ethics symposium: Rationing responsibly in an age of austerity Health professionals face ever expanding possibilities for medical treatment, increasing patient expectations and at the same time intense pressures to reduce healthcare costs. This leads frequently to conflicts between obligations to current patients, and others who might benefit from treatment. Is it ethical for doctors and other health professionals to engage in bedside rationing? What ethical principles should guide decisions (for example about which patients to offer intensive care admission or surgery)? Is it discriminatory to take into account disability in allocating resources? If patients are responsible for their illness, should that lead to a lower priority for treatment? In this seminar philosophers from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics will explore and shed light on the profound ethical challenges around allocating limited health care resources.

Practical medical ethics symposium: Rationing responsibly in an age of austerity Health professionals face ever expanding possibilities for medical treatment, increasing patient expectations and at the same time intense pressures to reduce healthcare costs. This leads frequently to conflicts between obligations to current patients, and others who might benefit from treatment. Is it ethical for doctors and other health professionals to engage in bedside rationing? What ethical principles should guide decisions (for example about which patients to offer intensive care admission or surgery)? Is it discriminatory to take into account disability in allocating resources? If patients are responsible for their illness, should that lead to a lower priority for treatment? In this seminar philosophers from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics will explore and shed light on the profound ethical challenges around allocating limited health care resources.

Practical medical ethics symposium: Rationing responsibly in an age of austerity Health professionals face ever expanding possibilities for medical treatment, increasing patient expectations and at the same time intense pressures to reduce healthcare costs. This leads frequently to conflicts between obligations to current patients, and others who might benefit from treatment. Is it ethical for doctors and other health professionals to engage in bedside rationing? What ethical principles should guide decisions (for example about which patients to offer intensive care admission or surgery)? Is it discriminatory to take into account disability in allocating resources? If patients are responsible for their illness, should that lead to a lower priority for treatment? In this seminar philosophers from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics will explore and shed light on the profound ethical challenges around allocating limited health care resources.

Practical medical ethics symposium: Rationing responsibly in an age of austerity Health professionals face ever expanding possibilities for medical treatment, increasing patient expectations and at the same time intense pressures to reduce healthcare costs. This leads frequently to conflicts between obligations to current patients, and others who might benefit from treatment. Is it ethical for doctors and other health professionals to engage in bedside rationing? What ethical principles should guide decisions (for example about which patients to offer intensive care admission or surgery)? Is it discriminatory to take into account disability in allocating resources? If patients are responsible for their illness, should that lead to a lower priority for treatment? In this seminar philosophers from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics will explore and shed light on the profound ethical challenges around allocating limited health care resources.

Dr. Stephen Rainey. Dr. Rainey is a research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. He is a working in the Horizon2020-funded project BrainCom, developing therapeutic brain-computer interfaces that will enable communication for users with debilitating speech conditions. Dr...

Tom Douglas' presentation at the MT16 Oxford- Bucharest Work in Progress Workshop Speakers from Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Bucharest University’s Research Centre in Applied Ethics (CCEA) present work in progress on a range of themes in applied ethics. In this episode, Tom Douglas presents 'Parfitian Survival and Punishing Crimes from the Distant Past'.

Cristina Voinea presents work at the MT16 Oxford-Bucharest Work in Progress Workshop. Speakers from Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Bucharest University’s Research Centre in Applied Ethics (CCEA) will present work in progress on a range of themes in applied ethics. In this episode, Cristina Voinea of Bucharest University discusses 'Designing for conviviality'.

Constantin Vică presents work in the MT16 Oxford-Bucharest Work in Progress Workshop Speakers from Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Bucharest University’s Research Centre in Applied Ethics (CCEA) will present work in progress on a range of themes in applied ethics. In this episode, Constantin Vică of Bucharest University asks 'What if Kant were a designer?'.

Exploring the Future of Humanity: Anders Sandberg has a background in computer science, neuroscience and medical engineering but is currently in the philosophy department of Oxford University, at theFuture of Humanity Institute. Anders’ research centres on management of societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technology, estimating the capabilities of future technologies, and low-probability high-impact risks. Topics of particular interest include global catastrophic risk, cognitive biases, cognitive enhancement, collective intelligence, neuroethics and public policy.He is currently senior researcher in the FHI-Amlin collaboration on systemic risk of risk modelling. He is also research associate to the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. He has worked on enhancement neuroethics within the EU project ENHANCE, and robust risk estimation as an AXA research fellow.

Dr Dominic Wilkinson, Director of Medical Ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, explores the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia and asks whether it should be made legal.

How should health resources be distributed? Jonathan Wolff discusses this and related questions in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. This episode was originally released on Bioethics Bites in association with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and made possible by a grant from the Wellcome Trust. 

Disagreement about moral status is at the heart of many issues in practical ethics. In this bonus episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast (originally released on Bioethics Bites) Jeff McMahan, in conversation with Nigel Warburton, explores some of the questions surrounding the status of a human foetus, non-human animals, and those in persistent vegative states. Biothethics Bites is made in association with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and made possible by a grant from the Wellcome Trust.

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.