Philosophy Talk Starters

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/nature-wilderness. Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is artificial about wilderness? Should humans be understood as a part of nature or distinct from it? And how should we approach conservation efforts so that we balance the needs of a growing world population with the need to preserve some aspect of the wild in our lives? John and Ken welcome Jay Odenbaugh from Lewis & Clark College for a program recorded live on campus in Portland, Oregon.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/moral-costs-climate-change. Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the industrialized world owe developing nations? What values should we hold onto, and which must we discard, in response to the changing climate? John and Ken survey the moral landscape with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, editor of "Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future."

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/neuroscience-and-law. Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal behavior change the way we assign moral responsibility and mete out justice? Should it? Is committing a crime with a "normal" biology fundamentally different from doing so with an identifiable brain disorder? John and Ken ask how the law should respond to the findings of neuroscience with David Eagleman, author of "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain."

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/gut-feelings-and-art-decision-making. We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or "gut feelings" rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or medicine – which may lead decision-makers to construct elaborate post facto rationalizations to explain their intuitive choices. What place should intuitions have in important decision-making? Is there a role for expertise in developing reliable gut-feelings? John and Ken trust their instincts with Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author of "Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious."

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/hypocrisy. Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for executions. Hypocrites all ­ - but vile hypocrites? Surely it was better that Jefferson was a hypocrite, and articulated the case against slavery, than not opposing it at all. Does it take courage to defend a view that you, yourself, don't have the courage or the character to follow through on? John and Ken try to practice what they preach with Lawrence Quill from San Jose State University, author of "Secrecy and Democracy."

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/identities-lost-found-global-age. Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they're born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and expatriates endure? What happens to the importance of place when community membership can be based on common interests among people linked by email and facebook? John and Ken situate themselves with UC Berkeley English Professor Bharati Mukherjee, author of "Miss New India" and other novels exploring migration, alienation, and identity.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/corporations-and-future-democracy. The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? How are capitalism and globalization subverting the interests of democracy at home and abroad? Does the problem stem from fundamental inconsistencies between global capitalism and national democracy? Can regulations provide a solution, and if so, who has the authority to create and enforce these regulations? John and Ken welcome former US Senator Russell Feingold, author of "While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era."

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/what-might-have-been When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about what might have been in a different scenario true or false? When I say things could have gone differently than they did, I am speaking of a possible world in which things did, in fact, go differently. But how do we make sense of this talk of possible worlds? How can there be facts other than facts about the actual world? John and Ken consider the possibilities with Laurie Paul from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, co-author of "Causation: A User's Guide."

Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato's Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests. More at: http://philosophytalk.org/shows/summer-reading-list-2012

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/freedom-blame-and-resentment When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there's no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic universe? Or are we simply genetically programmed to respond emotionally to perceived injuries? John and Ken talk freely with Pamela Hieronymi from UCLA, author of "The Will as Reason."