Philosophers Take on the World
Edited by David Edmonds, OUP, £12.99
Applied ethics is sometimes dismissed as the poor relation of more esoteric and supposedly loftier philosophical pursuits. The journeymen tackle quotidian issues while the master craftsmen focus on the deep stuff. This is a very silly perspective given why philosophy was invented in the first place: to help us understand and live the good life. It also overlooks the fact that applied ethics can be a decidedly rigorous and sophisticated endeavour, though this provokes a different set of problems.
When philosophy deals with real-life dilemmas, the general public should be clamouring for the results, but the field is, as David Edmonds admits, brimful of “abstruse and technical language”. This often can’t be helped, given that a complex academic discipline requires its argot, but it can easily become off-putting for the uninitiated.
All hail, then, a venture from the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford. The centre has been running a daily blog which invites professional philosophers to comment on issues raised by topical news stories. High intellectual standards are maintained but the blog, according to Edmonds, is “the antithesis of a peer-reviewed journal”. This collection brings together some of the best posts and they make for fascinating reading.
Many delicate and complex topics make appearances. What are the ethical implications if paedophilia is seen as a biologically determined disposition? How should a liberal society deal with illiberal folk who want to foster children? What language should we use to discuss suicide bombers? Familiar themes around issues of medical ethics, abortion and looted art treasures sit next to seemingly quirky topics that actually open up unexpectedly rewarding avenues of inquiry: musings on ice-cream made from human milk or the pros and cons of hating rival sports teams.
The quality of the contributions is very high and it is pleasing to have some of one’s assumptions confirmed and others challenged. I was almost convinced, for at least half a minute, that banking can be an ethically superior career choice and that a surveillance-heavy culture might have some advantages, and I was delighted to be reassured that hanging up on cold-callers is a morally blameless activity. We should always have a “presumption towards politeness”, but there are limits – and, crucially, when you slam the phone down on the solar-panel salesperson you are rejecting his or her professional persona, not the ethical being at the other end of the line. Phew.
Perhaps the finest demonstration of how powerful these short philosophical excursions can be is provided by a poignant article by Charles Foster. “My son is dyslexic, and I’m glad,” he begins, and while readily explaining the challenges this presents, Foster can’t help but see his son’s dyslexia an “an inextricable part of him” rather than a pathology to be eradicated. It is one of the reasons why his right-brained son “sees holistically; he’s a big-picture person; he intuits; he connects wildly distant and different concepts”. He is less good with “boring, nerdish, reductionist, systematic, literal things” but perhaps he is “the real intellectual aristocrat”.
Foster admits that this is all, in part, about “putting on a brave face for him and for me” and that the family will probably go along with the treatments, but he also wonders what will be lost. Foster’s love letter to his “gleefully anarchic, iconoclastic son – who snaps up the world in one mouthful and knows how the whole thing explodes on the palate” is one of the most beautiful and challenging things I’ve read in a long time.
If this is what philosophical blogging can achieve then I’m now a convert, and its to be hoped the Uehiro Centre’s initiative prospers for many years to come.
