Studies have shown that children develop an innate sense of fairness and justice from a very young age. But if you look around the world today, you’ll find little evidence that this carries over into adulthood. So, can we really claim to know the difference between right and wrong, to know what is just and what isn’t?

Seemingly not.

Ethics and its social application, political philosophy, have been areas of philosophical study for thousands of years. In the 1970’s, however, the moral philosopher John Rawls came up with a very simple, effective and influential idea for assessing what’s fair. In doing so, he developed a robust theory of justice. After many decades of increasing inequality in our society, could his theories provide us with an ethical antidote?

We will be looking at the age-old concept of justice through the lens of egalitarianism. This philosophical approach attempts to reduce the impact of social inequalities to ensure a fair distribution of resources.

Good to know: We take pride in putting the fun back into serious philosophy through our friendly and respectful discussions involving different levels of experience of philosophy. Collectively exploring interesting and exciting ideas from different viewpoints is what the Lit & Phil Philosophy Forum is all about.

Please read John Pickersgill’s focus paper Getting Back to Moral Basics before the 30th of May to enrich and guide our discussions. Don’t worry if you find some of it difficult, ethics is a minefield!

We are usually oversubscribed, so if you book but find out later that you cannot attend, please cancel your ticket to free up a place for someone else. Thank you.

The most essential and intimate puzzle of our lives – what is the self? What is our nature? Are we just a body with a brain as its central controller? Can we think about our self in the same way as we think about the rest of the universe? Or is the self a ghostly manifestation of the brain’s workings, a secret ‘soul’ which only we know?

Why do we feel that we are one thing, one person, one self? Perhaps instead are we like an orchestra with many different parts, each coming to the fore at different times … but hopefully in harmony?

Can we ever know our self? Many philosophers, both Eastern and Western, consider the self as an illusion. But are they saying we are not really here?

This month the Forum takes a selfie.

Good to know: We take pride in our friendly and respectful discussion involving different levels of experience of philosophy. This session will be based on a focus paper The Self – body, mind or illusion for reading before the event. Don’t worry if you find some of it difficult … everybody does!

We are usually oversubscribed, so if you book but find out later that you cannot attend, please cancel your ticket to free up a place for someone else. Thank you.

What role do emotions play in our lives?  Are they purely subjective and thus beyond the reach of science? Can we control our emotions?  In which case, what is the interplay between emotions and rationality?  And where does ‘free will’ fit into the picture?

Consultant psychiatrist Professor Bob Johnson (a member of the Lit & Phil who has far more letters after his name than in it!) will lead us into this philosophical jungle.  Dare you enter with him?

Our friendly and respectful discussion will be based on a focus paper – The Philosophy of Emotions – written by Bob, and for reading before the event.

Good to know: If you book but find out later that you cannot attend, please cancel your ticket to free up a place for someone else.  Thank you.

Tempus fugit (time flies).  And a new year seems an appropriate time to think about time.  But have you got time?  If you are reading this, then the answer is probably ’yes’.  But have you got time, meaning have you understood it?  Then the answer is probably ‘no’.  Time has been a persistent philosophical conundrum for a very long time (!).  Perplexing, paradoxical and problematic … but a concept we couldn’t manage without.

Our friendly and respectful discussion will focus upon seven possible explorations of time covering the aesthetic, scientific, historical, literary and semiotic.  Is time the only reason everything doesn’t happen at once, as Albert Einstein quipped?  Is it merely a comparison of spatial changes or is it an independent aspect of existence?  What is the relationship between subjective time and chronological time as measured by clocks?

Recommended for background reading are two articles from ‘Philosophy Now’ magazine:

‘Time & Change’ by Raymond Tallis

‘Calling Time’ by Anthony Proctor

Good to know: These two articles are included in the focus material, which will be shared with event registrants.

“Time’s wingèd chariot [is] hurrying near” … so book a place now. It will be time well spent!

Utilitarianism is the theory that morality need only be understood in terms of its utility to society. So, what is morality? Is it, as Utilitarianism implies, adaptable to the moods of time? Or is there an impersonal ethical anchor governing us all?

In this friendly and inclusive forum, we will examine Utilitarianism through a short introduction by Pierre Waugh, followed by discussions in small groups.

Utilitarianism seems intuitive in explaining why morality should exist in the first place: bringing about the happiness and fulfilment of the greatest number of people in a world that requires coexistence with others. If we call happiness good and unhappiness bad, then our very social language ascribes the same qualities to morality as it does to feeling. So why not maximise the good?

But can the aggregation of people’s personal happiness be a sufficient reason to govern all our decisions? Or is it more complex than that when different people’s interests conflict with one another? As with any theory, the nature of what it represents must be questioned.

Good to know: All you need to attend this relaxed discussion group is an enquiring mind.  We accommodate different levels of philosophical experience. You may find it useful to watch this 15 minute video published on the Royal Institute of Philosophy’s website beforehand.

Why do humans tend to reach for something ‘beyond the natural’ for insight or comfort? Is it justified?

This group discussion will continue to explore the ideas debated by Philip Goff and Jack Symes in our event Between God and Atheism (18th October).

Richard Dawkins made the point that every theist is an atheist of one sort or another. Even devout believers deny the existence of gods other than their own. But gods come in many forms. From the capricious personalities of Greek and Roman mythology and Abrahamic traditions to the god-soaked ‘atheism’ of Spinoza.

However, the supernatural need not be god-like. Some traditions, particularly in Eastern thought, have a less individualistic ‘spiritual’ conception of the transcendental, including pantheism. These days, Western intelligentsia normally contend that the natural is sufficient and other beliefs are unjustified. So why do humans continue to look for something (not necessarily a god) beyond the natural for either intellectual or emotional reasons.

We will explore whether there is a dichotomy between theism and atheism or intermediate stages of belief.

Physicalism is the theory that all phenomena are fundamentally physical in origin.

It argues that anything, from thoughts and feelings to the Aurora Borealis, has a natural and physical explanation whether we as humans understand it yet or not.

During this meeting of the Lit & Phil’s Philosophy Forum, we will explore this theory and its implications, in an accessible and friendly way. Attendees will then be encouraged to investigate and share their thoughts with the group.

If you don’t believe in the God of the Bible or the Quran, then you must think we live in a meaningless universe, right?

People get stuck in dichotomies of thought. If you don’t like Soviet Communism, then you must be in favour of US-style capitalism. Well, not if there are political opinions other than those two (which of course there are).

Another dichotomy is between traditional religion and atheism. Whose team are you on, Richard Dawkins’ or the Pope’s?

In reality, a significant number of people consider themselves ‘spiritual but not religious’. These people find themselves somewhere between Dawkins and the Pope. Somewhere between God and atheism.

Philosopher Philip Goff is currently working on a book which argues for a surprising combination of views: God does not exist and yet there is a purpose to the universe. In this live discussion, Philip Goff and Jack Symes will debate the credibility and implications of such a view. Is it reasonable to claim that “God does not exist” and can we make use of cosmic purpose in the absence of God?

The event will be in the form of a debate, and contributions from the audience will be encouraged.