glass house philosopher / notebook 1
Sunday, 29th October 2000
Judi just ran in to tell me that the clocks go back today. I already knew! But I need that hour, it gives me just enough time.
I'm using my Pearlcorder again, as it seemed to work well last time. My thoughts are all over the place. Last Wednesday was half term for my WEA evening class, so I didn't write a notebook page for them. A fatal pause! I left them pondering the metaphysical argument about my 'perfect double in another possible world' and my 'zombie double in another possible world'. I was going to say that they seemed bemused. But that's putting it mildly. Nonplussed, would be closer.But today, more urgent matters. There's been a massive increase in the number of questions for Ask a Philosopher, far more than I can cope with. I've got to consider seriously how I am going to manage it. The one thing I didn't want to happen was to have people submitting questions and not getting answers. It's very nice to have my 'Cornucopia' of questions on the Questions Page, but that wasn't the idea. The idea was that everyone would get an answer to their question. How on earth am I going to do that?
Even with the philosophers helping me, Brian Tee, Matthew Del Nevo, Rebecca Browne, Will Greenwood and now, our newest contributor from Brazil, Paulo Ghiraldelli Jr. whose answers on pragmatism I'll be posting today, we're still falling further and further behind. Drastic action is needed. So I've decided to start posting questions on the two main e-mail lists for academic philosophers, Philos-L and Philosop. I expect there will be some ruffled feathers. Someone is bound to object (as they always do when anything new happens) that the lists were 'not designed for this purpose'. But what the hell. Let's see what happens.
Meanwhile, I'm going to make an attempt at clearing some of the backlog today. I doubt whether I'll get very far.
There's the question from Emily, which is at the top of the Questions Page. I don't want to take it off because it is so good:
Looking at all of the various questions on this site is quite dizzying. Though I find philosophy to be an interesting and worthwhile subject, I can't seem to understand why or how people can ponder such unsettling questions. Sure thinking about these questions takes no small mind and is quite intellectually stimulating, but when you consider the subjectiveness and ambiguity of everything involved in philosophy, doesn't seem a little wasteful? Anyways, the questions that I really wanted to ask, (which I am afraid to ask my philosophy teacher) is, what is your response to this quote by Karl Marx?:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it.
This is the famous quote from Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, whose humanistic re-interpretation of Christianity in his book The Essence of Christianity had a big influence on the young Marx. I would almost go so far as to say that the young Marx's views on alienation, and on the pursuit of money and materialism (in his 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts) have a strong religious undercurrent.
The first thing to note about Marx's comment is that he isn't saying that philosophers should change the world rather than trying to interpret it. If you read the words carefully, you will see that the aim, the purpose of interpreting the world is in order to see what change is necessary, in order to see what it is we must do. As John Macmurray (Prime Minister Tony Blair's favourite philosopher) once said, 'All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action, and all meaningful action is for the sake of friendship' (The Self as Agent Faber 1957 Introduction, p. 15).
I would agree with this. But I would also say that we should not let our immediate practical interests dictate what is, or is not an acceptable philosophical question. I do not hold the view that philosophy is justified by its immediate practical results. The justification for philosophy is that we feel impelled to ask philosophical questions. Philosophy is valuable because we need to philosophize, because of the way we are. I am talking about the desire to find a place for ourselves in the world, to grasp 'what it all means'. That is an ultimately practical concern. If things fail to make sense because I perceive that there is something wrong with me, then I must change myself. If things fail to make sense because I perceive that there is something wrong with the world, then I must change the world.
So that's my answer to Emily.
Well that more or less decides the theme for today's notebook page. It is in ethics and political philosophy, more than any other branches of philosophy, that philosophical thinking leads to decisions about what we have to do. And that has been the case, right back to the beginnings of philosophy. There has always been a practical interest, despite what Marx seems to imply.
Here's a question from Michelle:
We were asked to write an essay on "Social justice" in relation to people with learning disabilities. We were asked if social justice was achievable for people with learning difficulties/disabilities.
I would be interested to learn more on this subject. We have looked at ideologies and in particular the work of Rawls and Nozick but surely there must be more to this issue...?
This question interests me particularly because one of my ex-students, Jonathan Toogood (page 45), who is in the process of submitting a PhD proposal, suffers from severe cerebral palsy. His doctoral thesis will be on the sociology and philosophy of disability, concentrating on questions of the right to life, eugenics, and the highly controversial issue raised by Peter Singer over 'non-voluntary euthanasia' (page 27 and page 28).
In relation to the question of 'social justice', I am reminded of a science fiction play I once saw on TV, a vision of a dystopia where in order to achieve social justice, people with exceptional talents or gifts were handicapped, in order to bring them down to the common level. I was particularly moved by the plight of a philosopher who was forced to wear a helmet with pop music blasting in his ears.
Underlying this satirical picture is the widespread prejudice that providing facilities for people with disabilities for example, learning disabilities inevitably involves handicapping the rest, holding them back. If more teacher hours are spend on the slower students, then the quicker students lose out.
What is social justice? This is the issue between followers of Rawls (A Theory of Justice) and followers of Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia). Nozick repudiates any idea of 'justice' that involves redistribution. If people are unequal for example, have unequal wealth it is not the job of society, or rather the state, to set the balance right. To take from the rich in order to give to the poor is theft, irrespective of whether this is done by the tax man, or by Robin Hood and his merry men.
What is wrong with saying that if someone has learning disabilities it's their hard luck? I accept that the idea that we can somehow even everything up is preposterous. But I don't agree with Nozick. My view would be that 'evening things up' cannot be what social justice demands. What we can strive for is a proper balance, taking account of the fact that everyone has something to offer, everyone deserves a decent chance. As a society, we can surely afford to expend extra resources on those who need it. But note that I said that we have to take account of what people have to offer, too. We fail in our giving, our sharing, if we are not able to value what the other has to give, to share with us in return.
Here's something completely different. Lee was asked by his lecturer:What does Sam do if he is told by Matthew that if Sam doesn't kill Sarah, then Matthew will kill twenty people?
This looks like a typical philosopher's question, that you would never encounter in real life. In fact, the imaginary scenario poses a significant challenge to the moral philosophy known as 'utilitarianism', according to which the morally right action is defined as the action that leads to the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number'. There are decisions that we make in our everyday lives, which involve balancing up our own principles, our own moral beliefs, with the knowledge of what other people will do as a result of the decisions that we make.
In his question, Lee goes on to make a good case for saying that it would be wrong to kill Sarah, in order to stop Matthew carrying out his threat, even though it would lead to the lives of twenty people being saved. Sam is not responsible for Matthew's actions. Killing Sarah would be wrong as a means to the end of saving twenty. But, of course, Lee then realizes that twenty will die as a result of Sam's inaction. Is he free to wash his hands of the twenty?
Suppose you still feel that it would be wrong to kill Sarah. Suppose that we made it two hundred, or two thousand? Bernard Williams uses an example very similar to this in order to argue against utilitarianism, on the grounds that it requires us to sacrifice our 'moral integrity'. (This is in Utilitarianism for and Against (1973) where he debates the question with J.C.C. Smart, an advocate of utilitarianism). However, in a later article, 'Utilitarianism and Moral Self-Indulgence' in Contemporary British Philosophy H.D. Lewis Ed. 1976) Williams recognizes that it would be a kind of self-indulgence to always put one's principles first, no matter what the consequences.
In other words, we cannot keep your hands spotlessly clean. There are times when we have to get them dirty.
Sam's decision is not simply whether or not to kill Sarah. The first thing he should do is make Sarah aware of the situation. But then again, if I was in her position, I wouldn't offer my life to save twenty. My personal feeling is that I could not kill Sarah, while she was begging me to let her live, in order to save twenty, or two hundred, or two thousand. Is that self-indulgent? Well, let's suppose the two thousand are horribly tortured...We can go on supposing forever, can't we?
The general principle is that our moral decisions have got to take some account of consequences. Yet, in some important and deep sense, ethics and I mean, ethical theory conceived as a system of rules, principles that guides our actions is impossible. It cannot be achieved. Because we will always face real dilemmas, for which there is no ultimately correct response. And that in no way takes away from the importance and depth of ethical questions. There are questions on which we ultimately have to simply act, and take responsibility for our actions.
I feel I'm rambling on. There were more questions that I wanted to answer today. But the kids are getting hungry. It is Sunday, after all.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!