Philosophy Bites

1. Intuition vs. Reason: Navigating Moral Disgust

The challenge of modern ethics today is not simply to sit with our intuitions, because our intuitions are not necessarily reliable guides to what we should do.

"Yuk!" Factor. Our gut reactions, often expressed as "Yuk!", are powerful but unreliable guides to morality. These feelings, rooted in biology and social learning, can be useful as quick rules of thumb, but they often misfire in complex situations. For example, disgust towards incest, while rooted in evolutionary concerns about genetic abnormalities, may not be relevant in cases where genetic testing is available.

Reason over Emotion. Ethical decision-making requires critical reflection beyond our immediate emotional responses. Secular ethics, unlike religious codes, seeks reasons grounded in well-being, rights, and freedom, not just intuitive feelings. We must examine our "Yuk!" reactions, understand their origins, and decide whether they are valid in the context of modern life.

Ethical Discourse. Ethical discourse should strive for rational arguments, not simply a democratic vote on how much "Yuk!" a particular practice evokes. We must move beyond primitive, intuitive levels of ethical discourse, as we did with homosexuality, and engage in rational discourse to examine our emotional reactions and intuitions. This is especially important when considering radical advances in science and technology that challenge our traditional notions of human nature.

2. Moral Relativism: A Flawed Map of Morality

The relativist doesn’t do justice to that because he says ‘you’ve got your truth and I’ve got mine’—end of story. But the trouble is, it’s not the end of the story because we’re each seeking to impose a policy on the other.

Subjectivity vs. Relativism. Moral relativism, the idea that morality is subjective and varies between individuals or cultures, fails to account for genuine moral disagreement and conflict. While subjectivism claims that moral statements are merely expressions of personal feelings, relativism asserts that moral truths are relative to a particular group or culture.

Conflict and Disagreement. Moral disagreements are not like differences in taste; they often lead to conflict and the need for resolution. If one person believes fox hunting is wrong and another believes it is admirable, they have a political disagreement that requires more than just "live and let live." Relativism, by saying "you have your truth and I have mine," fails to address the need for a shared moral framework.

Quasi-Realism. A more pragmatic approach, like quasi-realism, acknowledges the reality of moral disagreement and the need to find solutions, without claiming that there is an objective moral reality "out there." It defends the seriousness with which we take moral disagreement and the need to resolve it, while recognizing that morality is a deep expression of personality and plans for living.

3. Animal Ethics: Expanding Our Circle of Concern

The major issue about animals and how we treat them is that they’re capable of suffering. I don’t think it’s about the wrongness of killing them.

Personhood vs. Sentience. While "personhood" (awareness of one's existence over time) is morally significant, the capacity to suffer is the primary ethical consideration when it comes to animals. Many animals, even those not considered "persons," are capable of experiencing pain and distress.

Speciesism. Speciesism is the prejudice of giving less weight to the interests of non-human animals simply because they are not members of our species. It involves prioritizing human interests over those of other sentient beings, without considering their individual capacities or needs. This is akin to racism, where moral status is determined by group membership rather than individual characteristics.

Factory Farming. Factory farming is a clear example of unnecessary suffering inflicted on animals for the sake of cheap food. The conditions in which animals are confined in factory farms are often miserable, preventing them from satisfying their basic physical and psychological needs. This practice cannot be justified by the benefits it provides to humans.

4. Genetic Enhancement: The Perils of Perfection

My main objection to the use of performance-enhancing genetic therapies, for example, has to do with the worry that it will corrupt sport and athletic competition as a place where we admire the cultivation and display of natural gifts.

Cure vs. Enhancement. While biotechnology for medical purposes is beneficial, non-medical enhancements, such as performance enhancement in athletes or selecting genetic traits in children, raise ethical concerns. The distinction lies in the idea of restoring or preserving normal human faculties versus going beyond what is considered normal.

Corrupting Sport. Genetic enhancement in sports risks corrupting the admiration for natural gifts and human effort. If athletes become bionic, we might admire the engineers and pharmacists, but not the athletes themselves. The human dimension of sport, the display of natural human excellence, would be lost.

The Ethic of Giftedness. The ethic of giftedness suggests that not everything about us is at our disposal, subject to our desire to master or manipulate nature. It points to the moral importance of humility and restraint in the face of what has been given to us, recognizing that our talents and abilities are not solely the product of our own will.

5. Friendship: The Art of Becoming Ourselves

Our friends are even more important than that. They not only allow us, they orient us toward what we are to be and they are crucial to our becoming one kind of person rather than another.

Beyond Morality. Friendship is a valuable relationship that cannot be fully understood through the lens of morality. While morality emphasizes treating everyone equally, friendship involves giving preference to our friends, treating them better than others. Friendship's value lies in its contribution to our individuality, not just our commonalities.

Shaping Identity. Friends play a crucial role in shaping our character and personality. They orient us towards who we are to become, and they are essential to our becoming one kind of person rather than another. Friendship is not a purely voluntary relationship; it depends on accidents and contingencies.

Time and Understanding. Friendship takes place over time, and understanding a friend requires seeing them in a range of situations. Friends see a pattern in each other's actions, a pattern that is only discernible with time. This pattern reveals their character and personality.

6. Cosmopolitanism: Embracing Global Citizenship

The cosmopolitans think it is good and interesting and fine that people live different modes of life; they don’t want everybody to become the same.

Universalism and Difference. Cosmopolitanism combines the idea that we are all part of a single moral community with the recognition that people are entitled to live according to different modes of life. It values both our shared humanity and our cultural diversity.

Conversation and Understanding. Cosmopolitanism emphasizes the importance of conversation and respectful dialogue across cultural differences. It seeks to find common ground and resolve conflicts through reasoned discussion, rather than imposing a single set of values. It recognizes that change often comes through life experiences and social interaction, not just rational persuasion.

Global Responsibility. Cosmopolitanism acknowledges our collective responsibility for one another, but it also allows for partiality towards family and community. It calls for a baseline of obligations to ensure everyone has the possibility of a decent life, while recognizing that we are entitled to care more about those closest to us.

7. Epistemic Injustice: The Power of Belief

To be recognized as a knower is to be recognized as rational; and we’re all used to the general idea in the history of philosophy that our rationality is what gives human beings their special dignity, their special value.

Testimonial Injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs when a hearer deflates the credibility of a speaker due to prejudice. This undermines the speaker in their capacity as a giver of knowledge and is a distinctive form of injustice. It is not just an empirical question but a philosophical one, related to how we operate as knowers and enquirers.

Credibility Deficit. Prejudice can lead to a credibility deficit, where a speaker's word is not taken as seriously as it deserves to be. This can happen even when the speaker provides evidence that goes against the hearer's stereotypes. The injustice lies in the way the speaker is undermined in their capacity as a knower, a capacity essential for human value.

Corrective Virtues. To counteract the risk of prejudice, we need to cultivate corrective virtues that enable us to listen beyond our biases. This involves developing habits of social perception and credibility attribution that are free from prejudice. It also requires awareness of the subtle ways in which prejudice can influence our judgments.

8. Multiculturalism: Beyond Cultural Stereotypes

I would argue for what I rather polemically call a multiculturalism without culture; a multiculturalism no longer premised on the solidified notions of culture that encourage and promote cultural stereotypes.

Culture as a Process. Multiculturalism should not be based on a bounded, unified view of culture, but rather on an understanding of cultural influences as diverse and dynamic. We should move away from the idea that cultures can be represented by a few spokesmen and recognize the diversity within cultural groups.

Toleration and Harm. While toleration is important, it should not extend to practices that cause physical or mental harm or treat people unequally. The challenge lies in interpreting "harm" and "equality" in a culturally diverse society. We must be wary of cultural stereotypes and recognize the diversity within cultural groups.

Listening and Choice. In the end, we must listen to what people say about their own lives and choices. While we have a responsibility to protect children, we must respect the choices of well-informed adults, even if we disagree with them. We must also ensure that people have genuine alternatives and are not simply making choices out of a lack of options.

9. Minority Rights: Justice in a Diverse World

Much of what we’re trying to do through multiculturalism policies is to accord the same level of respect and accommodation for minorities that majorities take for granted and that they achieve through the normal majoritarian processes.

Group-Specific Rights. Multicultural liberal democracies should recognize group-specific rights to remedy the particular injustices that different groups often suffer. These rights are not privileges but rather attempts to ensure equality and fairness for all.

Types of Minorities. There are three main types of minorities: indigenous people, historical regional minorities, and immigrant groups. Each group has different claims for rights based on their unique historical relationship with the state. Indigenous people, for example, have claims based on colonization, while immigrants have claims based on their integration into society.

Liberal Values. Claims for minority rights should be evaluated based on core liberal values of individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and democratic citizenship. Rights that do not enhance these values are not compatible with a liberal democratic constitution. Multiculturalism is not about tolerating intolerance, but about ensuring justice and equality for all.

10. Tolerance: A Critical Look at a Cherished Virtue

Tolerance is always about managing some object of aversion, which is different, and different with a stigma—different as a problem.

Tolerance as Management. Tolerance is often about managing something undesirable or foreign, rather than embracing difference. It implies a power dynamic where the "tolerator" is in a position of superiority, and the "tolerated" is seen as a problem. Tolerance is not the same as freedom, equality, or justice.

Tolerance as a Substitute. Tolerance can be used as a substitute for genuine equality and justice. For example, saying "we are for tolerance of gay people, but not for gay marriage" is a way of denying equality while appearing to be accepting. Tolerance can also be used to justify intolerance, as seen in the post-9/11 discourse where the West is portrayed as tolerant and the East as intolerant.

The Limits of Tolerance. Tolerance is conditional; it can be withdrawn when the tolerated group is deemed to have crossed a line. We must be wary of the way tolerance is used to justify the suppression of those deemed "intolerant." We should strive for a society where people are not just tolerated but respected and valued for their differences.

11. Infinity: The Mind-Bending Concept of Limitlessness

I think our fascination with the infinite comes from a vague sense that there is something out there that contrasts with our own finitude.

Paradoxical Nature. Infinity is a concept that resists definition, as it cannot be pinned down or circumscribed. It is often contrasted with the finite, yet it is also understood as all-inclusive, embracing everything. This creates a paradox, as the infinite cannot stand opposed to anything else.

Mathematical Infinity. Mathematicians use paradoxes to define infinity, such as the idea that an infinite set can be paired off with a subset of itself. This is illustrated by Hilbert's Hotel, where an infinite number of guests can be accommodated even when all rooms are occupied. These paradoxes highlight the mind-boggling nature of infinity.

Human Finitude. Our fascination with infinity stems from our awareness of our own finitude. We are limited in space, time, and knowledge, and the infinite represents something that is unconstrained and unlimited. It is a way of grappling with our place in the wider scheme of things.

12. Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unseen World

Scientific realism is the view that the world as described by scientific theories really exists and we know about that world.

Unobservable Entities. Scientific realism asserts that unobservable entities, such as atoms, electrons, and viruses, really exist and that we can have knowledge of them. This contrasts with skepticism, which views scientific theories as convenient myths rather than accurate descriptions of reality.

The Rise of Scepticism. Skepticism about the unobservable world arose from the failures of early scientists to provide mechanistic explanations for observable phenomena. However, the development of testable theories about unobservable mechanisms in the 19th century led to a resurgence of scientific realism.

Underdetermination and Falsity. Skeptics argue that theories are underdetermined by evidence and that past theories have all been proven false. However, realists argue that new evidence can help us choose between competing theories and that past theories were often approximately true. We should be realists about good theories and skeptical about dodgy ones.

Last updated: January 14, 2025