The phrase ‘glass ceiling’ was coined by the American writer and management consultant, Marilyn Loden, to describe the barriers preventing women from progressing to senior positions in their careers. The sociologists Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison have introduced the phrase ‘class ceiling’ to describe the barriers preventing those from working-class backgrounds from progressing in their careers. In their book, The Class Ceiling: Why it pays to be privileged, Friedman and Laurison have found that even when those from working-class backgrounds making it into prestigious jobs, they earn around 16% less than their colleagues from more privileged backgrounds. So why is this the case? And what can be done to shatter the glass ceiling?

Hamza King sits down with Sam Friedman to discuss social class. Sam is a Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of 'The Class Ceiling: Why it pays to be privileged' (2019). Sam has a new book coming out in September with Aaron Reeves called ‘Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite?’ (2024).

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast

A protection gap exists under international law for those displacement by the impacts of climate change. The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1988 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement offer no protection to those facing famine in Ethiopia, flooding in Pakistan, or the threat of ‘state extinction’ in Tuvalu. The idea of a climate refugee treaty has been suggested as a way of filling this protection gap, by outlining a set of rights for those displaced by the impacts of climate change. But is a climate refugee treaty the best way to manage those displaced by the impacts of climate change?

Hamza King sits down with Jamie Draper to discuss climate displacement. Jamie is an Assistant Professor of Political Philosophy at Utrecht University and author of ‘Climate Displacement’ (2023).

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast.

The laws which govern war do not reflect our moral intuitions about what types of behaviour are permissible when fighting wars. In some cases, morality is more relaxed than the law: the killing of noncombatants is almost never justified under international law, while many just war theorists believe it can be justified if these noncombatants pose a credible threat. In other cases, the law is more relaxed than morality: the killing of combatants is justified even if one is fighting for the unjust side under international law, while many just war theorists believe the killing of combatants is only justified if one if fighting for the just side. Should there be greater convergence between law and morality?

Hamza King sits down with Victor Tadros to discuss individual ethics in war. Victor is a Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory at the University of Warwick, and author of 'To Do, To Die, To Reason Why: Individual Ethics in War' (2020)

Subscribe for an extended interview👇

➡️ The Phlexible Philosophy Podcast