City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually discriminate against certain people? If so, who has less access to city streets? Is the design of our cities a political matter? Can we even talk about cities as being just or unjust by design? Or are they simply inconvenient, or poorly designed, for some? Josh and Ray hit the streets with Shane Epting from the Missouri University of Science and Technology, Co-Director of the Philosophy of the City research group.

Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.

In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Jon and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.

A child's first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the twenty-first century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times?

Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over other living creatures, and confining them to our homes. Is there any good moral justification for the keeping of pets? What makes some, if any, animals suitable as pets but not others? Do we have a special obligation to animal companions that does not extend to other animals? The Philosophers fetch Gary Varner from Texas A&M University, author of Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition.

Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes' "Evil Genius" and Davidson's "Swampman." Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could've been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.

In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won't deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.

Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more ethical too? What’s the point of doing moral philosophy if it’s not to make ourselves more ethical? How can we make ourselves better people? Or are we doomed to moral mediocrity, despite our best efforts to the contrary? Josh and Ray play nice with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Oddities.

For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain. But is this really the case? Given the historical and societal disadvantages that certain groups of people face, it may appear that a strict meritocracy could not—and should not—exist. So, is a true meritocracy ever attainable? And if it really did exist and were in place, would it be fair? Josh and Ray level the playing field with Jo Littler from the City University of London, author of Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.

When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes -- just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading special thinking about time and books about time.

Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjamin, and what is his intellectual legacy? Why did he believe that Enlightenment values, such as rationality and modernization, brought about disenchantment in the world? Did he think there was a way to find re-enchantment without abandoning these values? And what would he have had to say about social media and its power to distract? The hosts have an enchanting time with Margaret Cohen from Stanford University, author of Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution.

Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a pleasant way of whiling away some empty hours or escaping the daily grind? Or do we play games to form social bonds and build important life skills? Are there some games we should never play? And what exactly makes something a “game” in the first place? Josh and Ray team up with Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, author of Games: Agency as Art.

Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? The philosophers go on a spending spree with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because we feel a deeper sense of alienation or fear towards them? Is hating always the wrong response, or is there an appropriate kind of hate? Can we love and hate at the same time? And what's the difference between hate and other reactive attitudes like anger, disgust, and contempt? Josh and Ray shake off the haters with Berit Brogaard from the University of Miami, author of Hatred: Understanding Our Most Dangerous Emotion.

In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with your fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agree to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? The Philosophers are more than tolerant of their guest Reigina Rini from York University, author of "Abortion, Ultrasound, and Moral Persuasion."

Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? John and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.

In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or "open" relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society's commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? The Philosophers welcome back Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.

If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because they make us feel good? Could the goal of beliefs sometimes be to provide comfort? Or must all beliefs—unlike, say, desires and wishes—be based on some kind of justification or evidence? Our host philosophers truly believe their guest is Ray Briggs from Stanford University.