Here's the podcast. The abortion chat doesn't happen until about halfway through Hour 2.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Abortion
As most of you know, Miles, Terrence, and I do a weekly radio show on 88.1 FM. We talk politics, and often veer into more philosophical subjects. For instance, last week we chatted about abortion for a while. David (Faraci) called in and carried the conversation further, and Brandon tried to join in but we ran out of time. I think we will be talking abortion next week, so be sure to listen in and call in for that.
Here's the podcast. The abortion chat doesn't happen until about halfway through Hour 2.
Here's the podcast. The abortion chat doesn't happen until about halfway through Hour 2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can we listen online to this philosophical mash-up? If so then I might weigh in on the topic.
ReplyDeleteGlad you asked: You can listen live every Wednesday from 6 to 8 p.m. at www.wbgufm.com ("Listen live" link in the top left). You can call us toll-free at 888-7-WBGUFM.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good to get your thoughts on all the topics we cover. So tune in!
Sorry I missed the radio show last night. I was watching SuperBad and taking a break from grading.
ReplyDeleteI just finished the podcast in the OP. Dude, I miss those sorts of discussions. I think that Dave hit the nail on the head several times. Go Dave.
ReplyDeleteFor those who have listened to the podcast:
What do you think about the idea of slavery? I believe that it is clearly wrong to hold slaves, but think about this idea:
Peter asked if morality tracks the use of concepts, and I think the general answer is yes. I don't bow before any deontology. It was further asked whether the fact that lots of people thought (in the past) that slavery was morally permissible means that it WAS permissible THEN. I was mulling this question, and it seems to me that there is a difference between "slavery was ok then" and "it is ok that people thought slavery was ok then."
In the first case we have some serious temporal relativism, and in the second we only need to have an understanding that the ideas of equality-among-persons were not wide spread.
Those things which we can look back on and condemn do not necessarily point to there being some objective MORAL component of an act. Is the second of my "" statements above any better than the first? I haven't really decided.