I cannot listen to this actually. It is so stuffy and uppity. What this podcast needs is an actual human being with common sense and without a law degree. And what I really mean by that, is a Dan Savage type to breathe some life and reality into these responses, while talking circles around all these big fat degrees.

Not sure why this podcast ended but I thought it was interesting. I liked comparing my thoughts on the topics to what the panelists might say. Perhaps the topics could have been more interesting but I still looked forward to each week.

I will miss it. I don't know who decided to cancel the podcast but if it was based on bad reviews...boo to them! I loved to hear the different opinions. I wish that there were more "advice column" podcasts out there.

Half the time the questions aren't ethical. Do the producers know the times has another column called Social Q's for etiquette and manners? Panel has terrible chemistry, seem to always try to agree, with the result being a muddle.

Sometimes this podcast lapses into whiny liberal finger pointing. Also, they occasionally make comments/opinions regarding areas where they lack expertise (eg medicine, medical ethics) which is suboptimal. I really enjoy Kenji the most.

FYI — the Podcast “Financial Demands” was cut off at the end — in my download as well as here in the iTunes store.

Unlike some other reviewers, I found this iteration of the Ethicists thought provoking and interesting, until... The lack of knowledge and perspective shown by all three members of the podcast on the issue of the financial collapse of 2008, and the willingness of the panel to cast shame on an individual thinking of walking away from a mortgage, while having no depth of understanding on the (unpunished, in fact, rewarded) criminal behavior that led up to the sinking of the american economy is unforgivable. Good bye forever.

I’m trying not to compare this podcast to Randy Cohen’s columns, or even to Klosterman’s attempted remake. The point-counterpoint format was a good idea, but fails dismally in execution. Too often the panelists have nothing relevant to add to each others’ rambling commentaries. Most often the panelists make no reference to ethical principles. Kenji (sp?) is consistently thoughtful and concise, the others drone. The subjects chosen are often more suitable for a “Miss Manners” column rather than ethical debate. A huge disappointment.

Thought provoking and good answers to things that happen in every day life. An attorney on the panelf makes it even better \

Maybe my favorite half-hour of the whole week. These three are my heroes. It's the only good thing to come of Jake Silverstein’s stupid overhaul of the Magazine, but what a good thing.

I’ve listened to every episode... I’m glad Jack is gone; he seemed like he didn’t want to be there. The new guy rambles on a bit but at least is more personable. I wish there was a bit less on the law front, and like other commenters, wish there were more chemistry between them. It feels very much like they’re not in the same room, like we’re listening to a short phone conversation. I think the length of the show may be too short to really dig into the questions.

I enjoy the thoughtful and intelligent panel responses to real life questions. Thanks!

This new guy is boring as all get out. I like Yoshino and Bloom, but without Shafer it just becomes a liberal circle jerk.

After the first two or three episodes of this reboot, I was ready to unsubscribe (and to stop reading it in the Sunday magazine). But then two things happened: the hosts started actually addressing the ETHICAL implications of the topics under discussion instead of taking the “Here’s what I would do” approach (which is more about etiquette and advice than ethics) and Jack Shafer mysteriously—but thankfully—disappeared from the lineup and was replaced by a professor of philosophy. Shafer was terrible—no idea if he was playing the role of the curmudgeon or if he is genuinely that unpleasant and callous in real life, but either way, he was dead weight on the show and the most compelling reason to unsubscribe. With him gone, the mood is somehow both lighter and more serious, and I can say that I genuinely enjoy listening to this every week. I hope it continues to improve as time goes on and the panel really starts to click more and more in terms of genuine engagement instead of three mimi-lectures for each question.

I do wish there was more of a debate and that the group had to come up with only ONE answer between the 3 of them. That would make it more interesting, but I still love it!

I can’t believe all the negative reviews of this podcast! It’s true that the podcast has a weird format where it seems the hosts are taking turns reading pre-written answers instead of reacting to what each other is saying. There isn’t even a word of explanation when one of the co-hosts is replaced! But the moral questions posed by listeners are often true conundrums (to me, at least) and it’s fascinating how the three hosts come at the questions from different angles. Having a panel makes it clear just how difficult, messy, and interesting ethics can be. There’s real wisdom here.

Very entertaining and informative.

If you look at this from a standpoint of something to listen to and think about on your ride to work, it's quite interesting to listen to. I like listening to other people's standpoints, even if I don't agree with them. It makes me think about my own. I feel like a few reviewers are unfairly comparing this to an old, discontinued broadcast. Take it for what it is.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first four episodes, although I'm not so quick as the panelists to forgive those charities who mail nickels and quarters to guilt me into contributing. (Listen to the March 4th "Legally Bland" episode for context.)

I've listened to four episode because I'm so interested in the subject matter but the hosts and execution is really terrible. There is no basis in ethics at all. It's mostly just opinions from three people who have absolute no stake in evolving the ethical zeitgeist. The Lawyer perhaps has some knowledge of the differbts between legal and person ethics, but the business guy is awful! He chooses the interest of capitalism over the human condition every time; which is profoundly unethical. The show is mostly just frustrating.

I was a fan of Randy Cohen and would like to enjoy this one as well. I think it has potential. It needs to be simplified: have people ask a question, then provide an answer. That's it. As it is now, you hear a lot of babbeling after the question: people on the phone who didn't hear the question clearly and go off on unfunny tangents. Just one host, just one answer, please, no more babbeling.

I have long enjoyed the NYT Ethicist column, and I now similarly enjoy the weekly podcast. Of course, the discussion can only be as good as the questions asked, and the nature of this is quite variable. I appreciate the personality, life experience, background, and knowledge of the three hosts and enjoy the interplay between the three. I am expecting great things going forward!

Was hoping for something that genuinely tried to engage in a discussion of ethics. What I got is three people offering very shallow practical tips on how to get through your life. It's particularly frustrating how everything is pitched in terms of 'rights.' At the very least, maybe acknowledge that ethics goes quite a bit beyond the very cramped framework of what you have a 'right' to do? Kenji Yoshino's academic work is very sensitive to this sort of stuff, but unfortunately none of that shows up in the podcast. And the less said about Shafer the better. I don't object to them having someone who generally thinks that the market determines what is ethical. I just object to having such a cut-rate version of that guy.

This podcast has a lot of potential, and hopefully they take advantage of it in future episodes. The panel members are clearly smart, but they don’t go very deep into the questions. They sound uncomfortable with each other. I think they should all get drunk together a few times and meet each others’ families. Also, each episode they should swap out a member of the panel for someone who could provide a different, less-moderate viewpoint. As it stands, this podcast is “Legally Bland”.

Very little chemistry between the hosts, and no deep discussion of the questions. They don't even quite seem to share a working definition of what it means to be ethical. If they could find a way to have a little fun and/or go a little deeper, it would make for a better podcast.

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.

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 debaters were to change their opinion based upon another’s reasoning. Doubtful, but I’d like to hear how that happens.

I listened to one of the podcasts, then read a few more of this trio’s debates on day-to-day ethical questions. Dubious ethics. Far more “what’s been my experience” point-of-view, than a discussion of the more interesting ethical notions behind the questions. Asking three random people how they would solve a problem would likely gain you as much insight. These three offer nothing specialized on ethics. Podcast might be more accurate titled “Coffee Klatch Thoughts on Everyday Problems."

Listened to the "Fair Share" episode. I enjoyed the overall podcast as well as the topics discussed. I will certainly add this to my regular stations.

i’m a sucker for The Ethicist, but this podcast is terrible. No chemistry, plus awkwardly low production value.

Expected more. Could be a good show except the topics and execution left me wanting.

And as a dear Abby column, it is fairly successful, but don't come here looking for deep philosophy.

This was not the nuanced discussion I expected based on reading the column regularly. Maybe not quite the right panelists to speak off the cuff. Hope it improves with time.

Love the idea to have The Ethicists hashing it out each week. They have a chemistry feels like it's going to grow.

Panel is fun, collegial, and dissects everyday problems with a flair (On how to deal with a neighbor's crying baby: "speak softly and carry a stuffed animal.") Looking forward to more.

I so loved the old Ethicist podcast that Randy Cohen used to make. When they reintroduced it I was very excited that maybe this reboot would be an awesome new edition to my podcasts… But, after listening to this first episode, I’m sad to report that I don’t think that’s going to be the case. It’s not super terrible, but this panel just doesn’t have any chemistry, nor do their perspectives seem particularly deep or interesting. Randy was just one man, but his responses were always so smart and well reasoned. Listening to these three endlessly argue, the weird thing is that I never completely agree with any of them, and then there is never any consensus anyway. With Randy’s take I was always surprised how compelling his arguments were. And he had that great theme song.

Great idea but very poor result. Terrible panel, terrible questions, terrible answers. Unsubscribed instantly.