Episode 231: Hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada explore how living inside algorithmic media is reshaping not just what we see, but how we understand the world — and each another.

The conversation begins with a simple but unsettling observation: moments of national trauma linger emotionally long after the events themselves, leaving many people feeling brittle, exhausted and constantly on edge. At the same time, credible data suggests that in many measurable ways — from declines in violent crime and overdoses to medical breakthroughs and rising wages — life in the United States has improved.

So why does it feel so hard to even hear that kind of information?

The hosts dig into the ethical implications of media systems designed to maximize engagement rather than understanding. They unpack how personalized feeds, whether on social platforms, news sites or entertainment services, reward fear, outrage and conflict, while quieter forms of progress struggle to surface. Over time, this creates a distorted sense of reality, one in which crisis feels constant and improvement feels suspect.

The discussion moves beyond social media to consider how algorithms shape everything from the news we read to the music we discover. Kyte reflects on what’s been lost as we’ve traded broad exposure for hyper-personalization, while Rada shares how “big if true” rumors spread faster than verification in an environment with few editorial checks. Together, they ask what happens to moral judgment, empathy and civic responsibility when attention is continually pulled toward the most extreme claims.

Importantly, the episode resists easy answers. The hosts acknowledge that real suffering persists and that serious problems demand attention. But they argue that ignoring genuine progress carries its own ethical cost, especially when despair becomes a moral default that discourages engagement and collective action.

Episode 230: In an era when every major news event seems to demand an immediate opinion, “The Ethical Life” podcast asks a harder question: When is speaking up a moral obligation, and when is silence the wiser choice?

In this episode, hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada explore the growing pressure to publicly comment on political controversies, social justice issues and breaking news — especially on social media, where silence is often treated as consent. The conversation is rooted in recent national debates sparked by aggressive immigration enforcement actions in the Twin Cities and the intense online reactions that followed.

The hosts examine why the urge to speak can feel so urgent, even when facts are incomplete or emotions are raw. They question whether constant public commentary actually persuades anyone, or whether it more often deepens division by rewarding outrage and certainty over patience and understanding.

The discussion draws a careful distinction between private and public speech, noting that social media exists in a murky space between the two. Kyte argues that while working through ideas aloud can be valuable in trusted relationships, public platforms are often poorly suited for nuance, uncertainty or moral reflection.

The hosts also revisit lessons from the civil rights movement, including the example of Martin Luther King Jr., not just as a model of moral courage but of discipline, preparation and restraint. They contrast that approach with today’s expectation that everyone should weigh in on every controversy, often without time to listen or reflect.

Episode 229: Hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada are off this week, so we looked back through our show archives and are sharing four of our favorite ethical dilemmas from the past several months.

Topics include whether it’s OK to correct the actions of other people’s children, what advice you’d give your friend who won a lottery jackpot, the ethics around quick conversations and the proper etiquette when staying at an Airbnb.