The idea of this regular audio program is to engage ethicists in discussion of pressing practical dilemmas. Each program focuses on a particular theme—military intervention, international trade, political corruption—and takes as its starting point some more specific issue that is prominent in the public consciousness.
Public Ethics Radio is a production of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. It is hosted by Christian Barry and produced by Matt Peterson.
Subscribe to the Podcast
To subscribe to the podcast in iTunes, click here
To subscribe to the podcast in other media players, click here
Thanks to Kompakt for permission to use their music in the show, and to Steve Rennicks for original compositions.
To contact us, and to find past episodes of the show, please visit our main website at www.publicethicsradio.org
Current Episode
Larry Temkin on Extending Human Lifespans
Download the episode here (MP3 - 25MB)
- Right Click 'Save Target As'
Download the transcript here
In his victory speech, President-elect Obama singled out Ann Nixon Cooper. At 106 years old, she has borne witness to tectonic shifts in her society. Few of us would hesitate at a chance to live such a remarkably extended life. We can hardly imagine what our world will be like in forty, sixty, eighty years, but we’re certain it would be worth staying around to see. Today on Public Ethics Radio, we take a close look at that unhesitating certainty. What would a world in which everyone lived beyond 100 be like? Would it really be worth it for us?
We are aided in this process by Professor Larry Temkin, author of “Is Living Longer Living Better?” Temkin wonders just what it would be like if longevity researchers found the proverbial fountain of youth. Would multi-century lives really be desirable? The current expansion of lifespans is already presenting numerous ethical challenges: what to do with patients who can be kept alive physically but not mentally, how to maintain a system of social security in the face of an aging workforce, and so on. Temkin believes that we need to take a good hard look at all sides of the question of aging, rather than just blindly hoping for the best. If a scientist discovers a genetic switch that turns off cellular aging tomorrow, we had better be ready..
Larry Temkin is Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. A version of his article, "Is Living Longer Living Better" was published in the Journal of Applied Philosophy in August 2008. His website is www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/FACSTAFF/BIOS/temkin.html
Past Episodes
Current Episode
Larry May on Habeas Corpus
Download the episode here (MP3 - 26MB)
- Right Click 'Save Target As'
Download the transcript here
Are habeas corpus petitions, as Barack Obama put it, "the foundation of Anglo-American law"? Or are they just nuisance lawsuits, "whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material," that will just slow down the legal system and leave us "bollixed up," as John McCain claims? On this episode of Public Ethics Radio, we discuss these issues Larry May.
May distinguishes between a minimalist and maximalist sense of habeas corpus. As it's practiced in the U.S. today in the maximalist sense, a habeas corpus petition is essentially any constitutional challenge a prisoner may file against his imprisonment. Indeed, most death row litigation falls under habeas corpus. In the minimalist sense, the right to habeas corpus simply entitles the prisoner to appear in court and have the charges read against her, whereupon she may be immediately returned to prison.
The protection the minimalist right offers is limited. And yet, as May points out, even this more basic meaning of habeas is being denied at Guantanamo, where prisoners have languished for years without even facing charges. In PER episode 4, Christian Barry talks to Larry May about the meaning and moral significance of habeas.
Larry May's discussion is based his unpublished paper, "Habeas Corpus and Global Justice".
Larry May is Professor of Philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis and a Research Professor of Social Justice at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. His website is www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/people/may/index.html
Leif Wenar on the Resource Curse
Download the episode here (MP3 - 24MB)
- Right Click 'Save Target As'
Download the transcript here
When we talk about theft in international trade, we usually mean piracy, smuggling, or copyright infringement. Professor Leif Wenar, of King's College London, thinks that we might be missing the forest for the trees. Illegal transactions across borders are going on every day on an enormous scale. Consumers cannot help buying stolen goods when they buy gasoline and magazines, clothing and cosmetics, cell phones and laptops, perfume and jewelry. Worse, the money consumers spend at the mall and the filling station ends up in the hands of some of the most brutal rebels and repressive regimes in the world.
Wenar set out a powerful case in a recent paper in Philosophy & Public Affairs to show that corporations and countries that buy natural resources from bad actors in developing countries are violating the property rights of the people of those countries. If this claim is justified, then it is urgent to find ways to stop these corporations and countries from sending us these stolen goods.
Leif Wenar spoke to Public Ethics Radio about the intersection of property rights and natural resources, and discussed his ideas for stopping the theft.
This notion of institutionalization also speaks against the ever-popular ticking bomb scenario. If it takes weeks of interrogation to produce useful intelligence, then torture lite won’t be much help to Jack Bauer.
Leif Wenar is Chair of Ethics, and Director of the Centre for Medical Law and Ethics, School of Law, King's College London. His website is www.cleantrade.org
Jessica Wolfendale on Torture Lite
Download the episode here (MP3 - 26MB)
- Right Click 'Save Target As'
Download the transcript here
It’s been three years since George Bush announced that the United States does not engage in torture. Since then, a continuous stream of information has indicated that, although Jack Bauer–style brutality is officially prohibited, the U.S. officially sanctions and regularly employs interrogation tactics that push legal and moral boundaries. In today’s episode, Jessica Wolfendale sits down with Christian Barry to determine where those boundaries lie.
Specifically, Wolfendale is interested in the term “torture lite” and the distinction it attempts to draw between primarily physical techniques and more psychological ones. In her words, there is “torture, which is violent, physically mutilating, cruel, and brutal, and torture lite, which refers to interrogation methods (such as extended sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, and forced standing) that are, it is claimed, more restrained and less severe than real torture.”
Wolfendale denies this distinction. There’s no legitimate reason to separate practices like extended sleep deprivation from old-fashioned beatings. Torture lite techniques produce lasting effects, both physical and psychological, that are profoundly harmful. And they have pernicious effects for the torturers and the institutions that authorize themselves. In order to be useful, these techniques require interrogation sessions that can last for weeks, months or even longer. They require networks of interrogators who practice these techniques on all the prisoners who pass before them. As Wolfendale puts it, torture lite lends itself to institutionalization.
This notion of institutionalization also speaks against the ever-popular ticking bomb scenario. If it takes weeks of interrogation to produce useful intelligence, then torture lite won’t be much help to Jack Bauer.
Jessica Wolfendale is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne division of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.
Thomas Pogge on Pharmaceutical Innovation
Download the episode here (MP3 - 20MB)
- Right Click 'Save Target As'
Download the transcript here
Our medicines are improving at an impressive rate. Yet one third of the world’s population currently lacks access to essential medicines. Progress in pharmaceuticals is currently driven by patents, which grant successful innovators temporary monopolies on their inventions. These monopolies are incorporated into the World Trade Organization, whose members must adopt and enforce rules that offer twenty-year patents on new medicines. While this new global patent regime seems to strengthen incentives for pharmaceutical firms to innovate, it also cuts off poor people from access to cheap generic versions of advanced medicines.
Many think that this poses a genuine dilemma. Either we continue to promote innovation through the patent regime, recognizing that millions may therefore continue to die because of the resulting high prices, or we ensure access to the poor by breaking patents, but thereby eliminate all incentive for future innovation. Thomas Pogge denies this. He joins Public Ethics Radio to discuss his proposal, which, he argues, would ensure much greater access to essential medicines for the world’s people, and also promote innovation in pharmaceutical research.
Thomas Pogge is Professorial Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE); Professor, Yale University Philosophy Department; and Research Director, Oslo Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN). His website is pantheon.yale.edu/~tp4.
For more information about Thomas Pogge’s proposal for a Health Impact Fund, visit www.yale.edu/macmillan/igh.