People who think and write about the ethics of artificial intelligence sometimes talk about a 'responsibility gap'. The thought is that there are instances of harm resulting from the use of AI systems where it's difficult or impossible to know who or what should be held responsible. Some have further argued that the existence of this gap shows that our current concept of moral responsibility is not fit for purpose, and that we need to change it through a process which philosophers sometimes call 'conceptual engineering'. Enrico Galvagni and Fabio Tollon, both based at the University of Edinburgh, have an interesting contribution to make to this debate - they do think we need to engage in conceptual engineering, but they are interested in whether, and how, the concept of moral responsibility can be preserved, rather than changed.

Enrico and Fabio's paper on the topic is here:

Engineering responsibility in the age of AI: amelioration or preservation?

Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.

Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.social
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/

In this episode, we’re diving into the ethics of drill rap - a genre that has been celebrated for its creativity and authenticity but also heavily criticised for its alleged links to violence. Drill is often portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and some have called for it to be censored. Philosopher, and Beacon Junior Research Fellow at University College Oxford, Tareeq Jalloh, joins me to get underneath the discourse around drill. We discuss what the evidence shows about drill's supposed role as a cause of violence, as well as the wider social and racial dimensions of the controversy. Together, we’ll ask what’s really at stake when society debates the ethics of drill.

Tareeq's paper on the subject is here:

T. Jalloh, “ Does Drill Rap Cause Violence, and, Even if it Does, Should it Be Censored?,” Philosophy & Public Affairs (2026): 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.70015.

Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.

Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.social
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/

Content note: This episode discusses pornography in an academic context, focusing on ethical and philosophical arguments.

Feminist critiques of pornography have a long history and take many different forms. One influential line of critique focuses on claims about authenticity and the suggestion that certain forms of representation may be ethically problematic, particularly for women. In response, some producers and commentators have argued for the value of ‘authentic’ pornography, appealing to a mixture of ethical and aesthetic considerations and sometimes blurring the distinction between the two.

In this episode, Rosa Vince, a philosopher based at IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds, examines these arguments and explains why they find the ethical case for authenticity in pornography unconvincing. The discussion explores questions about representation, discrimination and harm.

Some further reading recommended by Rosa:

• Willis, Ellen. 2014. “Feminism Moralism and Pornography.” In The Essential Ellen Willis, edited by Nona Willis Aronowitz, 94–101. University Of Minnesota Press.
• Taormino, Tristan. 2013. “Calling the Shots: Feminist Porn in Theory and Practice” in The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure edited by Tristan Taormino, Celine Parreñas Shimizu, Constance Penley, Mireille Miller-Young. The Feminist Press
• Rooster, Hello. 2021. “From Victim to Activist: The Road to Ethical Porn” in We Too: Essays on Sex Work and Survival, edited by Natalie West with Tina Horn. Feminist Press. 148–154.
• Mac, Juno, Hello Rooster, Misha Mayfair, and Lina Bembe. 2019. “Aesthetics vs Ethics: Expanding Definitions of Feminist Porn.” In A Decriminalised Future: Sex Workers’ Festival of Resistance. Recording available at: https://decriminalisedfutures.org/aesthetics-vs-ethics-expanding-definitions-of-feminist-porn
• Macleod, P J. 2021.“How feminists pick porn: Troubling the link between ‘authenticity’ and production ethics” in Sexualities Volume 24, Issue 4.
• Gallant, Chanelle. 2017. “Why I Started The Feminist Porn Awards 10 Years Ago” Huffpost. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-i-started-the-feminist-porn-awards-ten-years-ago_b_587559afe4b0f8a725448343
• Crutcher, Emily E. 2015. ““She’s Totally Faking it!”: The Politics of Authentic Female Pleasure in Pornography” in New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law ed. Lynn Comella and Shira Tarrant. Praeger. Pp.319-334
• Berg, Heather. “Porn Work, Feminist Critique, and the Market for Authenticity.” Signs, Spring 2017, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Spring 2017), pp. 669-692

Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.

Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.social
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetl
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/