Hi-Phi Nation

One place where law and morality are supposed to agree is that there should be no crime without a criminal mind, what is called “mens rea” in criminal law. But there have been a proliferation of crimes that do not require knowledge or intent, contributing to over-prosecution and overincarceration. Conservative and libertarian lawmakers have claimed the moral high ground over progressives in advocating that people who do not intend and do not know they are breaking a law be excused for their criminal conduct. Is this correct, or is it just a cover to make white-collar crimes harder to prosecute? Today we look at the battle over mens rea reform in the criminal justice system, the moral theory underlying the idea that being culpable for wrongdoing requires an objectionable state of mind, and why it is that human beings care so much more about mindset than they do about conduct.

Guest voices this week: Michael Chase, Benjamin Levin, Gideon Yaffe, State Senator Todd Kaminsky, John Guidry, and Sarah Lustbader

Join the invite-only Zoom events after every episode this season, visit hiphination.org to find out how.

The episode is brought to you by the Getting Ethics to Work podcast, from the Prindle Institute for Ethics at Depauw University

Become a Slate Plus member at slate.com/hiphiplus to get a bonus episode every week this season, and to support Slate during this difficult period.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Drake coined “YOLO,” short for “you only live once” in 2011, and then later apologized for all the douchiness it subsequently engendered. But the spirit is ancient, and cross-cultural, speaking deeply to the kind of decision-making that is supposed to make for the good life. It seems to be saying that risk and spontaneity should be valued above prudence and planning. Is that true?

This week we take calls from listeners about their YOLO stories. We follow two college buddies who venture into the Malaysian jungle, naked, with nothing but a machete and oodles of YouTube survivalist knowledge looking for the ultimate YOLO experience.

Meanwhile, philosopher Nick Riggle meditates on the significance of YOLO, and wonders whether living twice, or an infinite number of times, would make a difference to the value we place on adventure and risk-taking. Maybe not. The spirit of YOLO then, might have nothing to do with living once, but rather about living at all.

Guest voices include James Moynihan, Daniel Olifi, Nick Riggle, and many Hi-Phi Nation listeners.

This is the season finale. Listen until the end of the episode for big news about Season 4 of Hi-Phi Nation.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Penny Lane gave up months of wages and weeks of her life to have her kidney cut out and given to someone she never knew, and who may never thank her. She is one of about 200 people in the US a year who give up a kidney altruistically. What motivates someone to do that? Evolutionary psychologist Michael McCullough believes that not only is there true altruism amongst the human species, but that it is a unique trait, an emerging and spreading trait, and it is selected for by evolution, even out-competing the more familiar traits of selfishness that drive evolution in other species. And the trait is responsible for moral progress in the world. Barry is skeptical, and calls friend of the show Kieran Setiya to talk him out of his skepticism, only to discover that, in many ways, humans are even worse than he thought. We may have evolved to demand altruism from others, but not be altruistic ourselves.

This episode brought you by Scribd and Inkl. Get an enormous library of books, magazines, podcasts, and audiobooks. Try Scribd for 60 days free. try.scribd.com/hiphi

Unlock reliable news sources from their paywalled sites, The Economist, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, and 100 more, a $12,000 annual value for just $75 the first year. Go to inkl.com/philosophy to get this deal.

God and the Space-time Manifold is a summer seminar at Rutgers Center for the Philosophy of Religion June 13-24th, 2022. Twelve philosophers will lead discussions about God and the philosophy of time. They are looking for applicants. All professional philosophers and graduate students qualify.

Sign up for Slate Plus, to receive ad-free version of this podcast and unlimited access to Slate.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we go inside investigative operations in NYPD internal affairs and in the war and drugs to look at the police use of discretion to selectively break laws in order to pursue the bad guys. One former FBI special agent turned political philosopher argues that local and federal law enforcement are the biggest threat to the rule of law in their ongoing use of discretion to secure informant deals, perform sting operations, and otherwise break laws in order to enforce them. Guest voices include Robert Bryan, Luke Hunt, Nick Taiber, and Sarah Lustbader.

In Slate Plus bonus episode: Sarah Lustbader talks about the incentive public defenders have to make informant deals, and whether we can justify liking police discretionary actions to break laws in the interest of busting crooked cops and politicians, but despise their use for low-level drug offenses. They conclude with talk about what makes for valid and free contracts between unequal parties, and whether there is a difference between and offer and a threat. To get the bonus episode, sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is a mobile home a home or a car? Is a car parked inside a home part of the home? The answer to these stoner philosophical questions determine the scope of police power. Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has presided over the expansion of police discretionary powers to stop, search, and arrest people through litigation over automobiles. This week, we look at the stories of those decisions, including Carroll, Ross, and Whren, We then turn to the political morality of police discretion, and why John Rawl's test of public reason places far more constraints on law enforcement than the Supreme Court ever would. We investigate the consequence of public reasons tests for targeted policing, racial profiling, and consider whether police should have the power to overrule democratically elected criminal laws. Guest voices include Sarah Seo, Brandon Del Pozo, and archival audio from SCOTUS.

In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about how to implement public reasons test for policing, and how the existing system has judges and prosecutors presume that arrest is the default rightful response to lawbreaking, rather than being a default wrongful response for malum prohibitum crimes. To get the full bonus episode, sign up for Slate Plus at slate.com/hiphiplus/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices