I recently interviewed Professor Dave, and a few things from our conversation have been playing on my mind. In this video, I reflect on some of our disagreements about animal rights.
The central question: if a chicken is already dead, does buying it from a supermarket make any difference?
I’d be interested to hear what people think, particularly where you think my arguments go wrong xoxo
I think I made a mistake in this interview.
Peter Godfrey-Smith – philosopher of mind and author of Other Minds – argues that animals are conscious and that factory farming is an abomination.
Peter explains that he didn’t want to engage with the logic of the larder argument (when I asked whether he’d kill happy puppies) – he also assumes the Journal of Meat Science data on failed stunning referred only to the worst cases, and I don’t think we ever address the nutrition or biodiversity points.
In all of these cases, I should have pushed for answers, or at least ensured that Peter was booked for enough time for the conversation to unfold in the detail it deserved.
Lesson learnt.
If you’ve watched the episode, I’d love to know what you think xo
Hey r/vegan,
I hope everyone's well! Since Jubilee Surrounded (vs 20 meat eaters), the most common question I've been asked is how vegans can be effective in high-stakes debates. I have a few tips, so I put together a video. I hope you find some use in it! xo
If you have any top debate tips/advice on converting anti/non vegans I'd be keen to hear them! (Leave a comment! xoxo)
Abstract
Headphones are philosophically strange objects. They create private sonic worlds within public space, raising deep questions about ethics, intimacy, identity, and the boundaries of subjective experience. Drawing on philosophy of music, phenomenology, and moral psychology, Jacob Kingsbury-Downs and I explore what everyday listening technologies reveal about human consciousness and social life.
We begin with the ethics of “loudcasting” – the public broadcasting of audio through phone speakers. Contrary to the intuitive view that the offence lies merely in excessive volume, Kingsbury-Downs argues that the perceived intrusion is fundamentally a matter of timbre: the compressed, synthetic quality of phone audio registers as alien within the surrounding soundscape. Against this, I suggest that the deeper violation concerns agency and consent – the imposition of a chosen sonic environment upon others.
The discussion then turns to headphone listening itself. Drawing on Steinbach, we consider headphones as a form of portable home: spaces of controlled intimacy that blur the distinction between external sound and inner thought. This phenomenology helps illuminate the appeal of ASMR, mukbang, and parasocial audio culture, in which listeners seek simulated presence, care, and emotional proximity through sound.
At its darkest extreme, this intimacy reveals the possibility of 'no-touch torture'. We examine Project MK Ultra and the practice of 'psychic driving', in which subjects were forced to listen repeatedly to recorded statements through headphones. Such cases expose the unsettling ambiguity of auditory violence: psychological harm without visible physical marks.
Finally, we consider the relation between music and personal identity. Why does music often feel more constitutive of the self than beliefs, memories, or political commitments? Drawing on Ben Nanay and Foucault, we argue that headphone listening exploits a uniquely confessional structure of intimacy – one increasingly central to contemporary culture.
I hope you enjoy the programme!
Hey r/vegan,
Fresh from the Jubilee debate, I sat down with Ed Winters for a conversation on veganism. (Needless to say: I can see why everybody loves him.)
We got into the problem of death quite early: I take the view that death has intrinsic disvalue because it destroys conscious life, which I think is one of many things that make animal lives valuable. Ed's position is more direct: the problem is the system that keeps feeding animals into existence precisely to be killed. I think we're both right about different things there.
Our sharpest disagreement was on whether veganism should extend to human exploitation: sweatshops, Foxconn, fast fashion. I argued that if veganism is about reducing the suffering and exploitation of animals, and humans are animals, the logic seems to demand consistency. Ed pushed back: he thinks veganism needs a clean, focused identity specifically opposing speciesism, and broadening it to include human labour risks diluting the message and handing critics an easy deflection.
>Since recording this, I’ve spoken to Ed at legnth about this (and I think he’s right: veganism, fundamentally, ought to be about non-human animals), but I don’t have much time for somebody who 1) avoids products such as wool and then 2) subsitutes something wool for a ‘vegan’ item of clothing produced by human slaves.
We also disagreed on whether non-animals have intrinsic value – I think they do; Ed doesn’t think so.
Ultimately, what we agreed on is more important than what we didn't: that veganism doesn't ask you to abandon your existing worldview. Whether you're a Christian, a utilitarian, or a Kantian, there's almost certainly a version of your philosophy that gets you to veganism.
Ed was also brilliantly sceptical about the carnivore health claims coming from a certain corner of the internet — noting, with characteristic understatement, that it probably isn't a coincidence that the most prominent right-wing influencers are also the loudest proponents of the carnivore diet.
We have more stuff coming out together soon – but, until then, I hope you enjoy the conversation!