Really disappointing
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I heard about this podcast on the Slate Culture Gabfest and got so excited I stopped everything I was doing and ran to subscribe to it, not wanting to give it the chance to slip my mind. I love well-structured discussion podcasts, and I assumed this would be a good one -- that the New York Times would be able to get clever, thoughtful people in for a substantial discussion of ethical matters. But it was actually sort of shocking how little the first episode I listened to ("Fair Share") had to offer. The questions are not well-chosen, because they mostly fail to bring up any actual ethical quandaries. The discussion is not worthwhile, because the hosts just take turns answering the bad questions and never really engage with what the others have to say. And the answers are not ethical, because for the most part no one seems concerned with the minor matter of how to live decently with others. Maybe that's not entirely fair; Bloom seems at least somewhat interested in the ethical dimension of the issues discussed, while Yoshino just sounds shy about venturing very far beyond his personal opinion. It's Shafer who's the real disappointment, apparently preferring to skip entirely over the matter of ethical behaviour and straight to his opinion on what is probably legal, minimally polite, or just about possible to get away with. For example, when that old thing about stealing medicine from a greedy chemist to save a dying spouse comes up, Shafer can barely contain his contempt for the ethical dilemma involved. After asking his co-hosts to "take our fingers out of the cancer for just a minute" he proclaims that "Yes, it's ethical to price-gouge, and I would say no, it's not ethical to steal". No elaboration, drop the mic. To me, this is clearly somebody who has become completely complacent about having a prestigious platform from which to share his opinions, and just I can't see how it's worth my while to sit and listen to something like that. Not when the BBC still puts out a good handful of truly excellent discussions in podcast form each week, and when the people at Slate at least seem to enjoy what they're doing. Certainly not when the amateur podcasting world is full of passionate people working from their kitchen tables, prepared to actually give something of themselves and their thoughts for an opportunity to have a dialogue with the internet. It's ridiculous. The NYT should be able to do better than this.”Read full review »
carmelist via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
03/02/15
More reviews of The Ethicists
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Thought provoking and good answers to things that happen in every day life. An attorney on the panelf makes it even better
\”
CordeliaX via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
08/09/15
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I listened to the old Ethicist on occasion but didn’t find it as engaging as this version. What I like about this new iteration is the following discussion, and how the debaters follow up their opinion with short examinations and reasoning. I think it could be even more interesting if somehow the...”Read full review »
joshreese via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/26/15
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“i’m a sucker for The Ethicist, but this podcast is terrible. No chemistry, plus awkwardly low production value.”
brooklynemma via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/25/15
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
