E62. "Appreciating Hate" - Should we stop consuming art from vile artists?

Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Magazine: Code “Happy” for 12 Issues/$4.95! https://www.afterdinnerconversation.com/subscribe/yearly

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2022!

STORY SUMMARY: Is acceptable to consume art that reflects the “depraved, the cruel, the violent, and the heartless” aspects humanity? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Felix doesn’t go for “moral relativism.” He believes there is good and evil, that art should not reflect the evil of the world, or enrich artists who are found wanting. Accordingly, Felix has gone about the lifelong process of removing all copies of the depraved art he can find, and afford to buy, in circulation. A police officer comes to his door because his sister in Arizona hasn’t heard from him in months and has asked for a wellness check. Felix explains his abundant video and book collection to the officer who is at first confused, but later begins to understand Felix’s reasoning.

DISCUSSION: Brings up load of great questions about how we judge art in all its forms when associated with an artist. Would you hang a painting that was done by Hitler? Isn’t there enough great music, literature, and art that doesn’t get recognized that it’s worth focusing on the obscure artists who need our support? That said, it’s tough to know if it’s the person or the situation, that makes them do these things. Would a normal person, given the money and power that comes with fame turn into a beast? And, of course, the economics of the whole idea of buying up art to remove it from circulation doesn’t work, but we are willing to suspend this point to get to the better point of the story, should we judge art the artist? Does it matter if they are alive or dead? Does it matter if they ever had the chance to even know their belief system was wrong?

BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.

COMPANION PODCAST: Listen to our audiobook readings of After Dinner Conversation short stories (“Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Audiobooks”).

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 or an entire year for just $4.95!

SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.

FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

Read More

E61. "Conscience Cleaners" - Does a criminal need to remember his crime?

Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Magazine: Code “Happy” for 12 Issues/$4.95! https://www.afterdinnerconversation.com/subscribe/yearly

Named “Top 20 Philosophy Podcast” for 2022!

STORY SUMMARY: Should a criminal suffering from the remorse of the crime he committed be permitted to be freed of that pain? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Mr. Henmore’s was convicted of a terrible crime many years ago. He served his time, and been paroled, and is genuinely remorseful for what he did. In fact, his pain is so great, even years later, he suffers severe, almost daily, mental anguish from the knowledge of what he did. His lawyer has gone before the Grand Rectification Council to ask permission to have Mr. Henmore’s memory wiped clean of the crime he committed so as to enter his suffering. After making his case on behalf of his client, it is now up to the Council, should Mr. Henmore forever remember the horrible thing he has done?

DISCUSSION: A hard story that caused us to go back and forth several times. First, can we really be sure that erasing the memory of the crime won’t alter the person so as to make it more likely they will commit the crime in the future? If we are absolutely sure of that, is there an argument to be made that the punishment of remembering the crime you committed should last forever? Counterpoint, does society have a duty to create useful people of those who are safe to integrate into society? And finally, from an emotional standpoint, don’t you want the person to committed the crime, simply to suffer with the knowledge of what they did? Lots of questions in this Gordian Knot of a story, but very few clear ethical answers.

BOOK LINK: Download the accompanying short story here.

COMPANION PODCAST: Listen to our audiobook readings of After Dinner Conversation short stories (“Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Audiobooks”).

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 or an entire year for just $4.95!

SUPPORT: Support us on Patreon.

FOLLOW: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

Read More

E24. "Choose" - What if death is the only option?

Named “Top 15 Podcast” for 2020!

STORY SUMMARY: A woman wakes up strapped to a lab table. An emotionless doctor asks her to choose what she would do for the trolley problem. She is then graphically shown the results of her choice. A new choice, do you push people out of an over-capacity life raft to save the others? She is again graphically show the result of her choice. This goes on for 1000’s of scenarios until the woman is totally exhausted from watching death. Only then does she realize she is being punished, 900 years after a choice she made, to kill children in order to find the cure to a disease.

DISCUSSION: Loads of utilitarian questions in this story, just one after another. Scenario makes them fit in the story very organically. Would a person really get rattled from watching all that death, or get desensitized? In Greek plays, it was called catharsis. It’s hard to know, is the woman being punished for her past acts, or re-educated, or being used as a deterrent to others? Should a person be punished after they have died? Should they be punished longer than their lifetime, or more than a single death?

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

Read More