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

We think of ourselves as rational agents, able to choose well for ourselves. Professor Sarah Conly calls this into question. She argues that we’re reliably bad at making certain decisions. So much so that governments should step in, and make many bad choices like smoking illegal – for our own good. But where does she draw the line? Aren't some decisions sacrosanct? What is the true value of freedom? Is paternalism insulting, or could it be the answer to societal crises? Tune in to hear Conly’s surprising case in favour of the “nanny state”.

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

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

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Some philosophers now argue that monogamy is morally wrong. Imagine your friend came and told you that you can’t have any other friendships. You’d be bemused. But what’s the difference between this and exclusivity in love relationships? Is jealousy a good reason to be monogamous? Or is ethical non-monogamy – such as open relationships or polyamory – the only ethical approach?

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

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

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Society assumes that animals do not have moral rights. But what could this be based on? How could we argue that humans are the only animals to have rights? And where do we draw the line? These questions about animal ethics also raise the question: why does each of us human beings, ultimately, matter as an individual?

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

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

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

Hedonists claim that pleasure is all that makes for a good life. Are they right that relationships, achievements, and meaningfulness have no intrinsic value?

We explore the surprising arguments on both sides of this debate about wellbeing, including a version of Nozick’s infamous experience machine thought experiment. Would you plug into an experience simulator, forever cutting yourself off from the real world to have the best time of your life and all the 'happiness' you could want?

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

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

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics

A trailer briefly outlining Surprising Ethics, a new podcast launching on 1st September 2025.

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

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

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics