Is lying in a business negotiation ever justified? Should you disclose your reservation price? And where does smart dealmaking end and dishonesty begin?

You can negotiate hard, protect your position, and still act with integrity. But most people in business have never been told how.

Charles Sherwood spent 30 years as a Founding Partner at Permira, one of Europe's leading private equity firms, sitting across the table from some of the most experienced dealmakers in the world. He has a view on all of it. This is not the conversation you expect.

Charles argues that ordinary morality does not stop at the boardroom door — that the same rules which govern honesty in everyday life apply just as fully in a business negotiation. That the invisible hand of the market is no excuse for dishonesty. That loyalty penalties in insurance and banking are a form of exploitation. And that the most underused phrase in business negotiation is simply: "I'm not willing to disclose that at this point."

Along the way he draws on 30 years of deals, boardrooms, and hard-won experience to test where ordinary morality applies in business — and where people wrongly assume it doesn't.

Charles is a Founder Partner of the private equity firm Permira, and the author of A Fair Bargain: The Ethics of Negotiation, published by LSE Press.

➡️ A Fair Bargain: The Ethics of Negotiation: https://press.lse.ac.uk/books/m/10.31389/lsepress.afb

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

Is it wrong to eat meat? Should you have to kill it yourself? And why does a fairer food system have to be a more expensive one?

You can eat well, cheaply, and with more choice than any generation in history. Someone, somewhere, is paying for it, usually the poorest people, the animals, or the planet. Philosopher Julian Baggini has spent years working out how our food system actually functions, and what it would take to make it fair.

This is not the conversation you expect. Julian argues that eating animals is not wrong in itself, that going vegan does not eliminate animal suffering, that lab-grown meat could be the food world's Theranos, and that the injustice baked into cheap food is a feature, not a bug. Along the way he lays out seven principles for a better food system and tests them against real cases: chocolate, coffee, salmon, cultured meat, and even food in space.

Julian is the author of more than 20 books, including "How the World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy". He co-founded The Philosophers' Magazine and has built his career making serious ideas clear for everyone.

➡️ How The World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-World-Ea...

➡️ Julian Baggini: https://www.julianbaggini.com (‪@microphilosophy‬)

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

You're walking past a shallow pond and a child is drowning. You could save them at minimal cost to yourself. Should you?

In 1972, philosopher Peter Singer asked exactly that question — and used it to argue that we are all morally obligated to give far more than we do. That argument gave birth to one of the most influential moral movements of our time: Effective Altruism.

In this episode, Hamza sits down with philosopher David Edmonds to follow the argument from Singer's drowning child all the way to the rise and collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried.

They discuss:

— Why some charities are genuinely 1000x more effective than others

— The trolley problem and what it reveals about our moral intuitions

— Whether moral saints exist and whether we'd even want them to

— Derek Parfit's glass bottle and the ethics of future generations

— What SBF's collapse means for the Effective Altruism movement

— The role of risk and uncertainty in moral theorizing

David Edmonds is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University. With Nigel Warburton he co-founded Philosophy Bites — one of the most listened-to philosophy podcasts in the world with over 49 million downloads. His latest book is Death in a Shallow Pond (2025).

🎥 Youtube: https://youtu.be/ymK8WuQdGms?is=lIHzI7ybfCCbf_4t

📖 Death in a Shallow Pond: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Shallow-Pond-Philosopher-Strangers/dp/0691254028

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

On the 27th of September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a Professor at Palo Alto University, appeared in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to testify against Brett Kavanaugh, who was at the time a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, for sexually assaulting her at a high school party they both attended thirty-six years earlier.

Not long after, Kavanaugh submitted a letter to the Committee calling her testimony nothing but a “smear” and affirming that he would “not be intimidated into withdrawing from the process”. Despite public outrage towards this trial, Kavanagh was still confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow victory of 50 – 48, and President Trump was quick to offer his sympathy: “What they put him through – the Democrats – over the last few weeks, it’s horrible. If you look at what he’s had to endure – horrible. False – statements. It doesn’t get any worse. But the beautiful thing is he is now in, and he’s going to be there for a long time.”

The interesting thing about this case is that both sides claim to be the victim: Mrs. Ford claims she is a victim of sexual assault, while Mr. Kavanaugh claims he is a victim of a defamatory smear campaign. But are these claims to victimhood equally valid? And how can we adjudicate between the two to determine who the real victim is?

Hamza King sits down with Lilie Chouliaraki to discuss these questions. Lilie is a Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of Wronged: The Weaponization of Victimhood (2024).

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/people/lilie-chouliaraki

➡️ Wronged: The Weaponisation of Victimhood (2024): https://cup.columbia.edu/book/wronged/9780231550239/

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

0:00 - Introduction

2:27 - What got you interested in victimhood?

6:01 - Why did you decide to write this book?

7:04 - How has victimhood been understood throughout history?

11:10 - How is victimhood portrayed in the film Forrest Gump?

17:18 - Did reverse victimhood play a role in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade in June 2022?

21:40 - What is the difference between vulnerability can victimhood?

28:25 - How can we evaluate the legitimacy of claims to victimhood?

33:03 - Who is the real victim: Christine Blasey Ford or Brett Kavanaugh?

37:40 - Outro

The Rwandan Genocide was one of the most horrific events of the twentieth century. After decades of unrest between Rwanda’s two biggest tribes, the Tutsi’s and the Hutu’s, civil war finally broke out on the 7th of April 1994, and over the next thirty days, 800,000 people were killed in cold blood, while the world stood back and watched.

UN forces were in Rwanda at the time, but they were ordered not to intervene, and many withdrew within the first few weeks of fighting. Kofi Annan, Head of Peacekeeping at the UN during the genocide, later said: “All of us must bitterly regret that we did not do more to prevent it. On behalf of the United Nations, I acknowledge this failure and express my deep recourse”.

This acknowledgement that the world should have done more to end the genocide led to the development of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine, which forms the main political framework for deliberating about humanitarian intervention. But do states ever have a responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens in other states? And what moral considerations need to be taken into account when doing so?

Hamza King sits down with Jonathan Parry to discuss these questions. Jonathan is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of 'The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction' (2025).

➡️ Jonathan Parry (LSE): https://jonathan-parry.weebly.com/

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/cpnss/people/jonathan-parry

➡️ The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction (2025): https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethics-of-Humanitarian-Intervention-An-Introduction/Parry/p/book/9781138082342

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Widely considered to be the father of modern science, Popper introduced the principle of falsificationism which states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must have a hypothesis which is falsifiable, or capable of being disproven. A theory with a hypothesis which cannot be disproven, like the belief that God created the universe in seven days, is not rightly understood to be a scientific theory.

Popper turned his attention to political philosophy during the Second World War, culminating in the publication of The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945, where Popper offered a defence of liberal values, famously stating that “We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Jason McKenzie Alexander, who has spent several decades writing on the philosophy of science, has followed in Popper’s footsteps and turned his attention to political philosophy in his latest book, The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves (2024). Jason warns that there has been an inversion of values across Western societies, where many now view the Open Society as a threat, rather than something to be celebrated, and argues that we must revise and reinvigorate our understanding of the Open Society, making it relevant to the problems we face in the twenty-first century.

➡️ The Open Society as an Enemy: A critique of how free societies turned against themselves: press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/m/10.31389/lsepress.ose/ (LSE Press)

➡️ J. McKenzie Alexander: jmckalex.org/home/Home.php (J. McKenzie Alexander's Home Page)

➡️ London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/cpnss/people/Jason-McKenzie-Alexander

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

Sheffield was once the steel-making capital of the world. During the First Industrial Revolution, almost half of the steel used in Europe was produced in Sheffield; and during both World Wars, the city became a bombing target because of the central role it played in arming the British military. This rich steel-making tradition began to decline under Margaret Thatcher. In the 1980s, market forces caused several of Sheffield’s steel works to close and the British steel industry was ultimately privatised. Sheffield – once known as the Steel City – has never fully recovered; and

South Yorkshire is now the poorest region in England. South Yorkshire is not an isolated case. In middle-income countries across the world, time and resources are being invested into capital cities and regions around them, at the expense of rural and coastal regions located further away from the capital. These left behind regions are in dire need of development.

Hamza King sits down with Sir Paul Collier to discuss economics for neglected places. Paul is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, and a Director at the International Growth Centre.

Paul is the author of 'Left Behind: A New Economics for Neglected Places' (2024). Paul has authored several other book, including 'The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it' (2007) and 'The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties' (2018).

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast

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).

Listen to other episodes below👇

https://www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/phlexible-philosophy-podcast