Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Jane goes to visit her parents over the Christmas holiday. She has recently learned that her parents, under a program that favors the rich and elite, had had her genetically modified before she was born to be the best possible version of herself. Jane is crushed at learning that her life success has nothing to do with her hard work and is angry at her parents for having genetically modified her. Her father argues the problem of evil; that it was in his means to do good, and had he failed to do so, he would have been a god that allowed evil to exist. Jane is unhappy with his responses, but now must move forward with the choice of what she will do, when it is her time to have children.DISCUSSION: This discussion didn’t go the way I thought it would. Jeremy and Sarah are both parents, but also have expressed a strong dislike for gene editing for the wealthy as a form of class-ism. Therefore, it was assumed they would be against gene editing your own child. However, they both agree that when it comes to our own child, you have a moral obligation to do everything you are legally allowed to do to give them the best chance at success in life, including doing legal things that violate your own personal morals. We also discuss the “problem of evil” and if a parent who fails to give their child the best chance of success, is, in fact, guilting for allowing the evil of lessor traits to exist. Can’t lie, this discussion did not go the way I expected!BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions. Use the discount code on our website to get the first month free!SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

After Dinner Conversation

E55. "The Perfect Daughter" - Should you betray your morals to give your child every legal advantage in life?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Kiki has a problem, the computer program that continually whispers the best choices, the Infinity System, is broken. She has been using it for years and simply doing what it says. Following its advice has become second nature to her. She heads into the shop to get it looked at, and finds out it must be sent off for repairs. She will be making choices on her own for a few days. The friendly “Mastermind” service representative at the shop asks her out on a date. Without her Infinity System giving her advice, she decides to take a chance and say yes. She ends up getting drunk and sleeping with him. When she heads into the store to check to see if her Infinity System is repaired, she sees the same “Mastermind” using the same pickup lines on a new woman. She storms out. Finally, after several lost days, her repaired Infinity System is repaired and sent to her house. Now she is stuck with the final decision, will she start using it again?DISCUSSION: Interesting story that brings up important discussions about when services to help you go too far. Also, there is the issue of AI trying to decide what kind of life you should be leading. Someone is programming that AI, and that person is making choices. Not to mention, how do you know the company is really acting in your best interest and not giving you advice that other companies paid them to give you? Even assuming all that isn’t happening, there is still the question of if you are using the tool in a way to help you, or you are deferring to it and it is becoming a crutch. It seems the people that would most use it (people who need help making choices) are the people who should least use it (people who need practice making decisions). Still, it’s an interesting idea of running the thin line of when technology makes your life better or worse.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions. Use the discount code on our website to get the first month free!SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E54. "The Freedom Machine" - What's wrong with getting a little AI advice?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Beth and Bob are expecting a baby. However, in this future, womb carried babies have been almost entirely replaced by the far safer “womb farms.” Beth has already decided she wants to have a natural pregnancy and carry the baby to term herself. She is shunned by others who see it as dangerous and selfish. Their neighbor, Sandy is the daughter of a Neo-Shaker family who used science to have their daughter born neuter, that is to say, without sexual organs or gender. Sex, they argue, is no longer necessary and sinful as procreation can now be handled without sex. Sandy self-identifies as female and intends to undergo a dangerous and painful procedure to add female sexual organs to her body. Beth dies during childbirth, but her baby survives. Bob and Sandy continue their friendship, and, overtime, start to fall in love. Sandy is finally scheduled for the operation, but Bob tries to talk her out of it. He has lost too many loved ones already. Sandy insists she must be made the gender to match her mental state and does the procedure.DISCUSSION: Interesting story in that it shows a contrast about the use of medicine. Are their biological functions that can/should be eliminated by science because they are simply the product of the meat that is our human body functions? Or, do you get a more rich experience as a human by having these purely physical functions we must do? Is carrying a baby one of these “meat” functions? On the other hand, the asexual character is using science to change her from the way she was born. Can science both be denied as being inappropriate in allowing us to feel human, and yet also required in helping us feel more human? Should Bob have done more to argue his case with his wife? After all, while she is carrying the baby, raising the child is a shared parental experience.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions. Use the discount code on our website to get the first month free!SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E53. "Step Back" - Is our "natural" biology always the best choice?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: A traveling salesman sits at the bar after a long day drinking bourbon. He is approached and cleverly pitched a new product he has discovered on a distant rim planet, Life. The product stops the aging process. The first batch is free, and the salesman returns eight years later to get into the distribution business.DISCUSSION: There are really three things going on in the story. First, how would you live your life differently if you knew you were going to live forever? Would you value other lives more, or less? Would you take a different review of risk? Second, there is the idea in the story that your soul exists because you have choices, and if you have your ability to make choices taken away, you have had your soul taken away. In the story, arguably, in order to continue to get the elixir, you have to get other people into the pyramid scheme, which means you have no choice, and have no soul. The third minor point of the story is about countries (or a planet in this case) with a single valuable resource can best leverage that resource for prosperity and power without risking being conquered by others to secure the resource supply.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions. Use the discount code on our website to get the first month free!SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E52. "Guilt-Edge Security" - How would you live your life, if you lived forever?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: The narrator is simply going about her life riding the bus home from work. A few stops later, a wolf gets on the bus, pays the bus ticket, and has a seat. The woman has heard about wolves and is apprehensive. At the next stop a few teenagers get on the bus. They see the wolf and immediately begin teasing it. The wolf refuses to fight back until, eventually, the narrator stands up for the wolf. The teenagers get off and the woman speaks to the wolf. Police, having been notified of a disturbance, get on the bus and begin the process of arresting the wolf based on the call received. The narrator, and the other bus patrons, stand up for the wolf and explain it was the teenagers who initiated the altercation. The police leave. The wolf explains to the narrator that if he defends himself, he will be confirming the stereotypes about wolves and that it is only through others standing up on his behalf, that opinions can change.DISCUSSION: Clearly an allegory related to racism, this is a story suited for adults, but would also work very well as a children’s story. One of our shortest podcast discussions, but just an amazing story to read and discuss. Brings up an interesting question about who are the ones able to end racism, those in power observing, or those the actions are against? Is passive resistance to show the brutality of your attackers the only way to bring moderates to your side? It’s the MLK vs. Malcolm X question regarding resistance. The story also forces us to wonder what kind of person we are? Have we ever been the person watching others be discriminated against and did nothing? What would we do if we were on the bus?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E51. "A Wolf On The Bus" - How do you know if you’ll protect others?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Jared has decided to enter a government program that, after 15 hours of counseling, will allow him to legally take his own life. Doctor Ansley is the top government therapist with 199 “saves” for the year. After several sessions it becomes clear that Jared has serious conviction about dying, but he also has a secret reason for his choice. Only after Doctor Ansley tricks him by giving him a fake test does he divulge his true reason for wanting to die. Jared believes the earth is feeding off of humans and has instilled, through chemical responses, our desire to stay alive so we will continue feeding it. In short, all humans are the earth’s food source and, only by becoming unattached from being alive, can we break the cycle. Jared completes the required sessions and dies. And Doctor Ansley now has questions as well.DISCUSSION: A really fascinating story that brings up important questions about our core belief system, where it comes from, and the obligations others have (or do not have) to respect it. There is a case to be made that you have a moral duty to try and talk all people, regardless of belief, to not kill themselves. Or, is that a type of bias towards valuing our own belief system regarding right and wrong reasons to allow people to die? Are there valid, and invalid reasons to kill yourself? Is a story like this, that proposes the idea of “ending the cycle of living” a story too dangerous to allow the public to read? But isn’t that a violation of our liberty and our freedom to come to our own conclusions? Loads to talk about in this story, and loads more we could have talked about. A must read, and a must listen podcast.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E50. "Prey" - How do you break the cycle of living?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: The narrator is invited by his father to go duck hunting as part of their bonding time. The narrator wants to spend time with his father, but expresses ethical concerns about hunting ducks. The father asserts hunting is a natural part of human evolution. The debate continues as the narrator decides to go on the hunt, but is undecided if he will pull the trigger. The story ends with father and son in the blind just at the moment before the narrator must decide if he is going to pull the trigger.DISCUSSION: This isn’t really a story about sport killing or not, at least to us. The really interesting part of the story is about how family, and those emotional ties, and those we need to be loved by and respect, might cause us to do things that we find personally morally objectionable. Here, the father gives the son several chances to not participate in the duck hunt, but it’s clear he will be disappointed, and that it might limit their future ability to have father/son time. This sort of unintentional (or intentional) manipulation happens not just with family members, but those in authority, or those who we respect and want approval from.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E49. "Take-em!" - When is a request from a loved one emotional manipulation?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Jack Benson gives his child a prototype toy from his company as a Christmas present. When they check the toy battery compartment, they find a sad poem written in Chinese. Jack decides to fly to China and visit the factory where the toy is produced. He pays an employee to read the poem over the factory floor loudspeaker. A woman on the factory line stands up in acknowledgement, then humbly returns to her work. Later, after the shift, she slips him a book of her writings, presumably, expressing more thoughts and emotions about her life.DISCUSSION: The obvious question for this story is, of course, do we have an obligation to know more about where our products are sourced and the labor that is being used to build them? His child shows the very disposable way we look at products of cheap labor. Also, it may have been irresponsible on the part of the narrator to put the poem writer at risk. What if she had been fired? She didn’t specifically ask for help. In some ways he seems trapped in his wealthy life as well, just trapped in a different way.BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E48. "Reach" - Should we know "the story" of the people behind the products we purchase?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Martha dies. She wakes up three years later with her consciousness put into the body of an android. She did not ask for this, it simply happened. She is forced to accept that Martha is dead, and that she must live out her new life as Echo. As an android, she has limited rights. She cannot see her former family or friends. She can only work for minimum wage. She cannot interact with any technology. She cannot go to the same location more than twice in a week. She cannot meet other androids for prolonged periods of time. She is not even allowed to terminate her own existence. Her only friend is a journalist who is trying to get the “android story” out. He does this by using an override switch that paralyzes Echo and allows him to download her complete data set since her inception.DISCUSSION: Story brings up wonderful points about what rights you are born with and what it is about you that earns you those rights. Is it your body, or something else? Is it inevitable that there are always lower class people to do the hard work and have limited rights? She was perfectly happy to take rights away from the androids until she was one. Even the person that is helping her takes her memories without her permission. The question we are wholly not qualified to answer is, when is AI “alive?”BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E47. "Echo" - What natural rights does a human in an artificial body deserve?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Sienna is living with a “Monster,” in this case, her father.  He does not hit her, but he does yell, and rant, and breaks things.  Sienna grows up always on edge that the “monster” will lash out at her.  Over time, she builds up equally toxic defense mechanisms.  She learns to yell back and to be as hate-filled as her father.  This all changes when she goes to college and meets her roommate Clara.  Clara does not lash out.  She does not accuse.  She does not go into conversations prepared for battle.  She listens, she is empathetic.  She does not “keep score” in their friendship.  Sienna assumes Clara has an alternative motive, and continues to be skeptical.  Eventually, Sienna comes to see Clara for what she is, a decent human being.  Armed with her new knowledge, Sienna heads home for Thanksgiving and confronts her father.  Her father credits himself with “breaking the cycle” and being a good father by not physically abusing Sierra that way his father was to him.  Sienna is frustrated, and resolves to never speak to him again.  Over the Christmas holiday, Sienna decides to visit Clara’s family.  Sienna’s mother asks if she, and only she, can come visit.  Sienna reluctantly agrees.  Her mother arrives, father in tow.  The story ends with Sienna in jail, having killed her father.DISCUSSION: Interesting story that brings up outstanding questions about the cycle of abuse and what is “getting better.” Sienna’s father is better than his father was to him, and it would be hard to expect much more from him outside of him independently deciding to get help. We already see Sienna taking on the horrible traits of her father and, were it not for her roommate, would probably end up just like her father. Perhaps everyone is the hero in their own story?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E46. "Sienna's Monster" - How do you escape the monster inside you?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: (Not suitable for children.) Bill believes in the Tooth Fairy. He is 28 years old. His girlfriend finds this odd, and sometimes socially awkward, but otherwise harmless. This changes, however, when Bill has his wisdom teeth removed and places them under his pillow with the expectation that the Tooth Fairy will accept his offering and provide him her payment as her showing of appreciation. To appease his belief system, Bill’s girlfriend decides to take the teeth and leave Bill some money, but unknowingly does not leave him payment in the “right” amount. Bill interprets this to mean the Tooth Fairy is unhappy with his offering of teeth and tries leaving a tooth from a denture. The tooth fairy never comes. Frustrated, Bill knocks out his own teeth so as to make another, and what he sees as proper, offering. DISCUSSION: Interesting story about how we decide what belief systems are acceptable, and unacceptable. Why is a belief in the tooth fairy more or less valid than one in God, the Devil, or that professional wrestling is real. Do we have a duty to be permissible of all other beliefs? Should we work to actively dispel them? Is it enabling a belief when we say nothing or simply say all ideas have value?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E45. "Bill And The Tooth Fairy" - When is it wrong to have a sincerely held belief?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Simon is on trial for, literally, killing the devil. He did it by telling everyone he was going to kill the devil. Of course, the devil found out and came to visit him. Simon told the devil he was a cheap peddler of a product, fear, he had never personally experienced. To prove he feared nothing, the devil removed his immortality. When he did that, Simon shot and killed him. However, nothing changed in the world. Evil didn’t go away, or even get less.DISCUSSION: The story asks the important question where does evil reside? Are we tempted to evil, or is there simply evil inside all of us. Conversely, if our evil is from our own thoughts and actions, does that also mean our grace comes, not from God, but from inside us as well? Do we simply create an external person to relive ourselves of the burden of understanding we are the evil of the world? How can we create less evil in the world? Does anyone think they are evil? Aren’t we all the hero in our own stories? Should the killed of Satan be put in jail?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E44. "Simon" - What would happen if you killed the devil?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: After Dinner Conversation Editor, Kolby, answers questions from readers and recaps Season Three.DISCUSSION: Kolby answer reader mail and recaps Season Three. What are his favorite stories from Season Three? What does he consider to be the most quintessential stories After Dinner Conversation has published? Why did we switch from publishing short stories to a monthly magazine? How do you judge stories for publication, and what are the best ways to increase my changes of getting published? How can I help out/support the publication?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E43. "Season Three Recap - Listener Questions"

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Peter finds out his partner Samir has been sneaking around behind his back to “try out dreaming.” According to Samir, he likes the way sleeping, and dreaming, makes him feel. And besides, he argues, it doesn’t do any harm; his work will never find out. Peter decides to break the law in support of their relationship and to stop taking the drug that makes sleep and dreams unnecessary, in order to better understand his partner. However, after one try Peter decides he doesn’t like the feeling of losing control and that sleep isn’t for him.DISCUSSION: The main question of the story is, are biological functions a necessary evil to be gotten rid of by science and, is sleeping one of those biological functions? Are cutting your nails, and going to the bathroom things we gain value from, or simple biological acts to be removed if possible? Does sleep service a purpose or is it just a biological act? If the ability to go without sleep was available, wouldn’t it eventually become necessary to stay competitive in a workplace? We all agree the government should not make sleeping illegal, but if given the chance, many of the group would do away with sleep for the extra time it provides. Would you be willing to do something illegal that your partner was doing, as in the story? What if the illegal thing went against your own values, would you still do it if your partner was? Is there a minimum age whereby you should not be allowed to made to go without sleep?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E42. "People Used To Die Every Day" - Is sleep a waste of time?

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2021!STORY SUMMARY: Roosevelt is a young black child who is obsessed with the life and philosophies of President “Teddy” Roosevelt. He is new at the school and due to an issue with other students is forced into the “Friends Group;” a social adjustment group for students the school have deemed at-risk. While in the group he meets Teddy, an overweight boy who has been in the group for years because he pulled an X-ACTO knife in art class on a fellow student who continued to bully him about his weight. The two misfit boys develop a friendship. Roosevelt teaches Teddy how to fight, as well as imparting bits of wit and wisdom from his hero, Teddy Roosevelt. Things go awry when they are caught swimming naked in Teddy’s pool. The school rumor mill spreads that they are gay. This leads to the school forcing the two boys to fight after school. Roosevelt decides that Teddy has more to lose and is less prepared to deal with the consequences of the altercation, so he allows himself to lose the fight. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “No man is worth his salt who is not ready at all times to risk his body – to risk his well-being – to risk his life – in a great cause.” This story was the runner-up of the Fall 2020 After Dinner Conversation Writing Competition.DISCUSSION: This story is one of the most expertly crafted stories we have ever discussed. It perfectly portrays the prejudice and attitudes of the early 1980’s. Of course, the interesting question in the story is the role that Teddy Roosevelt plays in influencing the main character that has lost his father. A book, and a long dead President, are serving the role of role model in his life. And, in turn, this is influencing his friendship with others. Is this a good thing? Are role models in sports, business, or history, a good thing? Some don’t want to be role models. Some are showing idealized versions of flawed real people. What role should role models have in crafting our personalities? Should we, as a society, be more careful, or put more controls in place, about the role models that have the ability to influence the opinions of children?BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.MAGAZINE: Sign up for our monthly magazine and receive short stories that ask ethical and philosophical questions.SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

E41. "Teddy And Roosevelt" - Do role models really matter?

Philosophy & ethics discussions about "After Dinner Conversation" short stories.

hubhopper

After Dinner Conversation

hubhopper