In this video, Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State University) discusses polyamory, the practice of having more than one sex and love partners, and its moral and legal considerations. This is part 4 of a series on Government and Marriage.
In the first of a four part series, “Racial Ontology: A Guide for the Perplexed,” David Miguel Gray (Colgate University) introduces general problems philosophers face when they ask the question “What kind of thing is Race?”. In particular, what fields of inquiry should study race, if there can be racial ‘experts’, and what an account of race should look like if it is to capture the issues we care about.
Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Friedrich Nietzsche in his moral, political, and religious writings. He explains why Neitzsche believes that living a full human life requires rational reflection and taking a cautious attitude toward conventional moral categories. JP Messina (UC San Diego) assisted in the production of content for this video.
Often it can seem like the existence of evil is incompatible with a good and omnipotent God. This video present an argument for that claim put forward by J.L. Mackie, and it examines the different ways that Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism respond to a version of it that concludes that there is no God.
Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) explains the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy that occurs when the same term is used with different meanings in an argument. Along the way, he discusses whether Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas.
If, as Classical Theists hold, we and all created things exist because God is good, what can evil be? This video presents the privation theory of evil--that evil is the absence of something that ought to exist--and shows how such evil is compatible with a good God.
People often say that God is good, and that God is just. But in what sense is God good and just? This video presents an argument from Classical Theism that God’s goodness and justice do not, as Theistic Personalists, think, count as *moral* goodness; rather, they follow from seeing God as the fullness of being.
What does it mean to say God *knows* things? This video examines two answers to that question. Theistic personalists hold that God knows things in the same sense in which we know things: by observing them. Classical Theists deny this account and hold rather that God knows things by causing their existence.
Both Classical Theists and Theistic Personalists agree that God created the world. But they disagree about how we should understand God’s causality. Does God cause things in the same sense in which we humans cause things, or is God’s causality fundamentally different from any causality we exercise?
In this video, Molly Gardner (Bowling Green State University) discusses six different strategies for solving the nonidentity problem. This problem arises in cases where an individual appears to be wronged by the very action upon which his or her own existence depends.
In this video, Sinan Dogramaci (The University of Texas at Austin) explains the puzzle of grue. He discusses how this puzzle undercut the attempt to formally develop inductive logic, the logic of probabilistic support.
In this video, Laurie Santos (Yale University) discusses why knowing about our cognitive biases is not enough to overcome them. She’ll introduce a new cognitive error known as the G.I. Joe Fallacy, the tendency for our biases to stick around even when we should know better.
In this video, Professor Jonathan Anomaly (Duke and UNC – Chapel Hill) discusses public goods, which are goods that are jointly consumed, so that they are available to everyone if they are available to anyone. Public goods often lead to unexploited gains from trade, and are frequently invoked to justify why we have a state to perform basic functions like defense, property adjudication, and the regulation of pollution.
In this video, Laurie Santos (Yale University) explains why our memories of good and bad events are a biased. Specifically, she explains how our retrospective evaluations fall prey to the peak-end effect— a bias in which we overweight the peak and end of our everyday experiences— and how this bias leads us to ignore other features of the event like its duration.
The psychologist Laurie Santos (Yale University) explains the phenomenon of mental accounting: why we don't always assume that money is fungible. She explores why we set up different accounts for different purchases and how we can use our mental accounting biases to be happier about our financial decisions.
Laurie Santos, a psychologist at Yale University, explains two of our classic economic biases: reference dependence and loss aversion. Using a classic scenario from Kahneman and Tversky’s studies, she explores how these two biases violate economic rationality and how they affect the choices we make every day.
Laurie Santos (Yale University) examines how people's economic choices tend to confuse price and value. She then describes how these so-called pricing biases compel us to incorrectly assume that higher priced goods will often work and taste better.