In medical ethics, competence (sometimes called decision-making capacity) refers to a person’s ability to make informed choices about their own healthcare. It is a central concept because respect for patient autonomy depends on the patient being able to understand, evaluate, and communicate decisions about treatment. Danielle Bromwich is a medical ethicist at the University of Leeds. In a paper co-written with Joseph Millum from the University of St Andrews, she argues that the way medical ethics has treated competence has been mistaken, that ethicists have been conflating two distinct concepts, and that this confusion has the potential to lead to bad decisions being made about patient care. We also explore the implications her account has for other domains in which we give and refuse consent, such as sexual relations.

The paper we discuss in this episode is available here.

Danielle and Joseph have also written a book about consent, which is available here. There will be a further episode of Ethics Untangled featuring Danielle soon in which we talk about the book and the ethics of consent more broadly.

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/

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/

Lisa Herzog is Professor of Philosophy at the Center for Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. The subject of this conversation is time, not in the abstract but how much of it we have, and what we might choose to do with it. We start by discussing whether people in general are lacking in free time. And then we move on to why it might be important to try to give people more time, not just for their own health and happiness, but also because of the costs to society and democracy of people being too time-poor. At the end, we get onto some specific policy measures that might help.

The conversation is based on a chapter of Lisa's latest book, which you can get here.

Some links to further reading as mentioned in the conversation:

Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life by Theda Skocpol.

Anderson, E. (2025). Local Knowledge in Institutional Epistemology1. Australasian Philosophical Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/24740500.2024.2422551

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/

AI-generated content is a familiar and increasingly prevalent feature of social media. Users post text, video, audio and images which have been created by AI, sometimes being clear that this is what they're doing, sometimes not. This isn’t always a problem, but some ways of using AI-generated content do raise significant dangers. So do social media platforms need to have policies in place specifically to deal with this form of content? Jeffrey Howard is professor of political philosophy and public policy at University College London. In a paper co-authored with Sarah Fisher and Beatriz Kira, he argues that policies that target AI-generated content specifically aren't necessary or helpful. It was great to get the chance to talk to him about why he thinks this, and how platforms should moderate this type of content without shutting down valuable free speech.

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/

Josh Hobbs is back in this episode for his second appearance. Again the subject is political. This time we're discussing whether we should all be activists. More specifically, does the existence of global structural injustice give us a responsibility to respond to those injustices, and should that response take the form of activism? Josh thinks there are reasons to think not everyone could or should be an activist, and introduces some other ways in which people can contribute, including something he calls 'scaffolding activism'.

Here's Josh's article on the topic:

Between activism and apathy: global structural injustice and ordinary citizens

Further reading:

With Power Comes Responsibility: The Politics of Structural Injustice — Maeve McKeown

What is My Role in Changing the System? A New Model of Responsibility for Structural Injustice

The Politics of Politeness: Citizenship, Civility, and the Democracy of Everyday Life | Oxford Academic

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/

Imagine this: You’re walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You’re the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you’re wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them - and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty - but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.

David Edmonds is a brilliant philosophical and biographical writer, not to mention an OG philosophy podcaster - if you haven't checked out any of Philosophy Bites's nearly 400 episodes then you definitely should - and ex-BBC broadcaster. His latest book is about the fascinating history of a philosophical thought experiment, from its origins in the work of Peter Singer through its influence on the Effective Altruism movement. In this conversation we focus on some of the philosophical questions surrounding this thought experiment: is it, as Singer claims, analogous to our own position with regard to distant others, and does it have the practical implications that he and the Effective Altruists have taken it to have?

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/