Are new year’s resolutions a golden opportunity for self-improvement, or do they reinforce a damaging ideology of work and “self-improvement”? And how can we best decide on a resolution?

This episode explores two philosophical challenges to the way we set new year’s resolutions. First, Bertrand Russell claims we should free ourselves from pro-work ideology, and embrace idleness and leisure. If we step back from hyperproductivity, we might want to reject new year's resolutions. Second, Kieran Setiya claims that we will never be fulfilled if the sources of meaning in our life mainly lie in projects and achievements. He suggests we should reorient our lives towards processes and the now, not completable tasks whose promise lies either in the future or the past. Combining Setiya’s ideas with work in the psychology of habit formation could lead towards a new way to set our new year’s resolutions.

Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics

Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Envy is seen as a deadly sin. But not by Professor Sara Protasi, who argues that envy is often good – even *virtuous*. Envy drives progress, she claims. Feeling envious is natural. And without it, we might never leave the couch. But how can such a destructive emotion be morally good? And even if envy makes us more productive in the short term, does it corrode our happiness in the long run?

Our conversation covers self-improvement and productivity; self-esteem, radical self-acceptance, and whether we should compare ourselves to others; love, friendship and envy; the politics of envy; inequality; and how racist attitudes may be driven by envy, focussing on racism against Asian Americans.

Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics

Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

We normally think: how can we stop AI harming humans? We may also have to ask: how can we stop humans harming AI? After all, there’s a surprisingly strong case for the rights of future AIs. If future (or present!) AIs have rights, why? And what actual specific rights could some future ChatGPT assistant even have? Will AIs wake up, and become conscious or sentient? Or is digital consciousness just not ever possible? Given the risks, should we stop AI development in its tracks to avoid creating sentient AI who might then be abused?

Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics

Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics