Morality

Introduction to Philosophy Course

Socrates famously declared “the unexamined life is not worth living” as he drank the hemlock given to him by the state. For Socrates, death was preferable to living without philosophy. But what is philosophy? What was Socrates fighting for?

This course aims to do two things: (1) give you some insight into what philosophy is, but more importantly (2) teach you the skill of doing philosophy. It’s one thing to read what philosophers have said, and it is quite another thing to practice being a philosopher yourself.

What do philosophers do? We ask the big questions confronting humans such as, how should we live? What is the nature of reality? Does God exist? What is the meaning of life? Then we try to answer some of those questions with arguments. We use the power of the mind to present good reasons for our conclusions or to uncover false assumptions and logical mistakes in others’ arguments (and our own).

What will you do? My hope is that you’ll read what some other very smart people have to say about ethics, the nature of reality, God, the meaning of life, etc. But beyond that, I want you to think critically about ethics, the nature of reality, God, the meaning of life, etc. The goal is not to change your mind about anything. Rather, the goal is to get you to see the reasons for and implications of what you believe, so that your beliefs may be better grounded in argument, too.

Weekly Topics

Why Study Philosophy?

The Nature of Reality

Belief in God

The Meaning of Life

How should you move through this course? I recommend starting at the beginning and going in order. Read the readings (housed in my personal Google Drive Folder) and watch the videos in the order they’re presented, while carefully considering the leading questions provided. If you would like to reach out to me directly to discuss, I’m happy to do so! You can also leave comments on this document, on social media, or in the Reason and Virtue blog comments section.

Recommendations for improvement or suggestions for cool new content are welcome! Feel free to use any part of this for your own teaching and learning purposes, but please do not publish any part of this for financial gain.

Why Study Philosophy?

Read: Russell’s “The Value of Philosophy” and consider these questions:

What is the difference between philosophy and science?
Why does Russell think uncertainty is so important?
What is the difference between a philosophical person and an instinctive person?

Watch: Socrates on Self-Confidence

Read: Plato’s Apology and consider these questions:

Socrates is charged with two crimes: (1) corrupting the youth of Athens, and (2) not believing in the gods of Athens. Be sure to keep close track of which crime he’s defending himself against in his speech. Do you think his defense is good? Why or why not?
Socrates essentially receives the death penalty for his crimes. Do you believe this is justified? Why or why not?

Read: “Why Marc Cuban Would Major in Philosophy Today”

Discuss: Bertrand Russell argues that the value of philosophy lies in its uncertainty. Think for a bit about something you’re currently uncertain about. Some examples might include: whether billionaires should be taxed more, whether or not new parents should have paid paternal leave, whether or not people should go to prison for nonviolent crimes such as doing drugs, whether true AI is possible, whether or not parents should spank their children and so on. Feel free to pick something you’re currently on the fence about that’s not in that list. Discuss the multiple options on the table—what are all the possible things a person could believe about removing billionaire taxes, paternal leave, drug offenses, etc.? After discussing the options on the table, explain why you are not yet ready to draw a conclusion. What’s holding you back? How does it make you feel to continue being uncertain?

Question: This first week is all about trying to understand what philosophy is and how it differs from other ways of thinking and academic disciplines. In our first Q&A this week, I’d like to hear what you think about philosophy. Feel free to answer any/all of the leading questions below or make up your own question. As always, if you see some fantastic philosophical references on social media or in the news, feel free to share!

Have you ever read, studied, or thought much about philosophy before? How did the first week’s readings, videos, and assignments compare to your preconception of philosophy?
Had you ever heard someone argue for the value of uncertainty or suspending judgment? What do you think about that? Do you agree that it’s sometimes better to not make up your mind?
Did you previously know the story of Socrates’ death? I think it’s a powerful story that still resonates today. What do you think?
You could also take a more practical approach to this week’s readings and think about the knowledge and skills learned and developed through studying philosophy. How might thinking more philosophically help you with what you want to do when you finish college?

What is an Argument?

Watch: Crash Course’s How to Argue

Read: Thinking Well Chapter 1

Read: Thinking Well Chapter 4

Discuss: First watch Michael Huemer’s TED Talk, “The Irrationality of Politics,” and then consider the following questions:

What are the two irrational policies Huemer discusses?
Why does Huemer think people are so irrational about politics? Do you find his argument to be persuasive? Why or why not?
Why does Huemer think that political rationality is costly? Do you believe we should just believe whatever we want or do you believe we should believe based on reasons and evidence? Are the two so opposed?
Do you agree that the biggest problem facing society today is the problem of political irrationality? Why or why not?

Question: We’ve been reading about good and bad arguments. I’d like for you to go out and find an example of a bad argument online somewhere. It could be an opinion piece/editorial or a Tweet—bad arguments are everywhere. Share a screenshot or link to your bad argument example, and then explain why it’s a bad argument. Is some fallacy committed? Does the conclusion not follow from the premises? Is there a false premise? Be specific about what’s gone wrong.

Utilitarianism

Watch: Crash Course’s Utilitarianism

Read: “Utilitarianism Overview” and consider the following questions:

Do you believe that the consequences of a person’s actions or the intention behind the person’s actions matter more? Why?
Do you believe that pleasure/happiness is all that’s important to a good or meaningful life? Why? If something else matters, what is it? How would you define pleasure/happiness?
Is it right to harm one (or some) in order to increase pleasure/happiness for many (or most)? Why or why not?
Are you a Utilitarian? Why or why not?

Read: Selections from Bentham

Read: Selections from Mill

Discuss: Consider the famous ethical dilemma called “The Trolley Problem,” which asks us to imagine we’re on a trolley, and if we do nothing, then the trolley will run over and kill 5 people tied to the main tracks ahead. However, we could choose to pull a lever, switch the tracks, thus only killing one person tied to the alternate tracks ahead. What should we do? Utilitarians have a fairly straightforward answer to the question, as demonstrated in the utility calculation below (assuming a maximum of 10 utiles of pleasure/-10 utiles of pain is possible).

Choice A: Stay on the main track, killing persons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Choice B: Pull the lever to switch to the alternative track, killing person 6

	A			B
	Pleasure	Pain	Net Utility	Pleasure	Pain	Net Utility
Person 1	0	-10	-10	10	0	10
Person 2	0	-10	-10	10	0	10
Person 3	0	-10	-10	10	0	10
Person 4	0	-10	-10	10	0	10
Person 5	0	-10	-10	10	0	10
Person 6	10	0	10	0	-10	-10
Total:			-40			40

Based on the results of the utility calculation above, the Utilitarian says we ought to choose B, pull the lever and switch the tracks, because choice B produces more net utility than choice A (the total for net utility is higher in B than in A).

First, watch this clip of the trolley problem in live action on “The Good Place” (warning: there is some serious fake blood shown):

This video shows Variation 1: what if the one lone person on the alternate tracks (person 6 in the calculation above) is a friend or family member? Would you still choose B? Is B still the morally right thing to do? Why or why not?

Second, watch this clip of the trolley problem.

This video shows Variation 2: what if instead of simply pulling a lever to divert the trolley, you had to push a large person off a bridge? Would you be willing to push one person, sacrificing their life, to save the others on the tracks? It’s still one versus many, but has your view changed? Why or why not?

Third, watch this segment (beginning at 7:30) of this week’s Crash Course video about a related Utilitarian thought experiment called “Medical Sacrifice.”

This video shows Medical Sacrifice: a similar “trolley problem-style” calculation of 1 versus 5, but many have taken it to be a very different case from the trolley problem. What are the differences? Do those differences make a moral difference? What should the surgeon do? Why?

Question: One of the most famous examples of Utilitarianism was President Truman’s decision to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII in the Pacific. Here’s an explanation of his reasoning from Philosophy Now:

“Within a few weeks of Truman becoming president, the war in Europe ended with the defeat of Germany. Truman also received word that the United States had developed a nuclear bomb capable of tremendous destruction. He was required to decide whether to use this weapon on the Japanese to bring about their quicker surrender and the final conclusion of the war. It could be assumed that with the end of the war in Europe, an invasion of Japan would be successful, and that the war could be ended with the conquest of Japan. However, to do this would cost a lot of human lives. Since the invasion never took place, it is impossible to know how many Allied soldiers would have died in the invasion. Truman heard estimates that put the death toll in the range of 500,000 to 1,000,000 Allied casualties. Truman was also aware of the continuing slaughter of Japanese from ongoing non-nuclear bombing, which had already cost the Japanese some 100,000 lives. Dropping atomic bombs and forcing the Japanese to surrender would not only save Allied and American lives, it would end further futile Japanese soldier and civilian deaths as well. So Truman decided to use nuclear weapons on utilitarian grounds. He reasoned that dropping the atomic bombs would ultimately cost less lives – Allied, American and Japanese – than would the continuing conventional bombardment of Japan coupled with the deployment of a huge military force on the Japanese Islands. And the use of the atomic bombs did end the war.”

Do you think that dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan was justified on Utilitarian grounds? You might be inclined to think that sacrificing some to save many is often justified, but not always. What are the limits of Utilitarian justifications? Under what conditions might it be flat out wrong to sacrifice one to save others?

Reflect:

Do you believe that the consequences of a person’s actions or the intention behind the person’s actions matter more? Why?
Do you believe that pleasure/happiness is all that’s important to a good or meaningful life? Why? If something else matters, what is it? How would you define pleasure/happiness?
Is it right to harm one (or some) in order to increase pleasure/happiness for many (or most)? Why or why not?
Are you a Utilitarian? Why or why not?

Kantian Ethics

Watch: Crash Course’s Kant and Categorical Imperatives

Read: Kantian Ethics Overview and consider the following questions:

Do you believe that moral rules are without exception? That is, if it’s wrong to lie, then it’s always wrong to lie. Justify your answer.
Which of the following do you believe: (A) it’s better to steadfastly do what you ought to do even though you do not want or care about doing it or (B) it’s better to both believe you ought to do it and also want or care about doing it? That is, do your desires and emotions matter to morality? Justify your answer.

Read: Selections from Kant

Discuss: A central tenet of Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics is that the ethical principles (the Principle of Utility and the Categorical Imperative) are universal, meaning that the principles apply to everyone regardless of time, culture, acceptance of the principle, or any other condition. They believe morality does not change from person to person or from culture to culture. Furthermore, Bentham, Mill, and Kant all believed there are “moral experts,” those who have spent more time and energy thinking about ethics; those who we ought to turn to for advice and expertise on what to do and how to live.

Neuroscientist Sam Harris also believes that moral principles are universal and that there are moral experts, and he expresses both views in his TED Talk, “Science can answer moral questions.” After watching the video, consider the following questions:

How does Harris define facts and values? Does he think there is a big difference between facts and values? Why or why not? Do you agree or disagree with Harris?
Harris believes there are (many) right and wrong answers to questions about how human beings flourish (about what’s morally right and wrong), just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physical health or healthy food. What reasons does he give for this statement? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Harris claims, “When talking about morality, we value differences of opinion in ways we would not in any other area of our lives,” before asking whether you’d take moral advice from the Dalai Lama or Ted Bundy. He also gives an example of a physics professor’s contribution to a professional conference versus his own contribution. What’s he getting at here? Should everyone’s opinion about morality count equally or should some moral experts (if they exist) get more of a say? Why?

Question: Now that we’ve studied both Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics, which theory do you like more?

Reflect:

Do you believe that moral rules are without exception? That is, if it’s wrong to lie, then it’s always wrong to lie. Justify your answer.
Which of the following do you believe: (A) it’s better to steadfastly do what you ought to do even though you do not want or care about doing it or (B) it’s better to both believe you ought to do it and also want or care about doing it? That is, do your desires and emotions matter to morality? Justify your answer.
Are you a Kantian?

Virtue Ethics

Watch: Crash Course’s Aristotle and Virtue Theory

Read: Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Overview and consider the following questions:

Do you believe ethics is mostly about performing right actions (and avoiding doing the wrong thing) or do you think it’s more about learning how to be a good person (and avoiding being a bad one)? Justify your answer.
Do you believe that being a good person requires the having right kinds of beliefs, emotions, and actions? Why or why not?
Can someone live a happy life without being a good person? Why or why not?
Are you a Virtue Ethicist?

Read: Selections from Aristotle

Discuss: Construct a profile of a virtuous person. Feel free to choose someone you know personally—a grandparent, friend, or mentor—or someone who is famous. The person need not be currently living. Give a detailed account of what makes this person virtuous, making reference to the essential concepts in Virtue Ethics to support your ideas.

After constructing your profile of a virtuous person, consider whether this person has any flaws. Have they ever made a mistake? Do they possess any vices? What are they?

Given that the most virtuous person one often considers also possessed some vices, what does this mean for Virtue Ethics? Virtue Ethics says that the right thing to do is what the Virtuous Person does or would do. But what if all so-called ‘Virtuous Persons’ also possess some vices? How do we know which things that a Virtuous Person does are right and which things are wrong? Be sure to consult the Overview of Virtue Ethics and Its Problems and the Crash Course video in formulating your analysis.

Question: Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics are both focused on happiness. For Utilitarians, happiness is a feeling like pleasure. But for Virtue Ethics, happiness (or eudaimonia) is more like flourishing, living a good life. Happiness is fleeting for the Utilitarian and long-lasting for Virtue Ethics. Which understanding of happiness do you think is more important to ethics?

When you answer this question, also think of the opposite of happiness, pain or suffering. Does the argument you give about which understanding of happiness matters ethically speaking, does the same apply to suffering? Why or why not?

Reflect:

Do you believe ethics is mostly about performing right actions (and avoiding doing the wrong thing) or do you think it’s more about learning how to be a good person (and avoiding being a bad one)? Justify your answer.
Do you believe that being a good person requires the having right kinds of beliefs, emotions, and actions? Why or why not?
Can someone live a happy life without being a good person? Why or why not?
Are you a Virtue Ethicist?

The Nature of Reality

Watch: Crash Course’s Leonardo DiCaprio and The Nature of Reality

Read: Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and consider the following questions:

What is real? Is the cave real? Are the shadows real? Are the shackles real? Is the light from the fire real? Are the puppets and artifacts real? What about the light of the sun outside the cave?
How do we know whether the light from the fire inside the cave or the light from the sun outside the cave is “real reality”? How can we tell which one is mere appearance?
The first of these questions is a metaphysical question about what exists. The second is an epistemic question about how we can know or have access to or believe propositions about what exists (or doesn’t). Is it easy to confuse these two types of questions? Why or why not?

Watch: Appearance vs Reality

Read: Selections from G.E. Moore. It will be helpful to have the following argumentative background in mind as you read this.

Begin with what’s called the skeptical argument, in this case based on the thought that we might be dreaming:

Premise 1: If I do not know I am dreaming, then I do not know external objects exist.
Premise 2: I do not know I am not dreaming.
Conclusion: Therefore, I do not know external objects exist.

This classic argument is an example of modus ponens, which looks like this:

If P, then, Q
P
Q

Moore’s approach is not to attack the premises of the skeptical argument, but rather, to change the modus ponens into an equally valid modus tollens argument, which has the following form:

I f P, then Q
Not-Q
Not-P

Here’s Moore’s modus tollens argument based on the same Premise 1:

Premise 1: If I do not know I am dreaming, then I do not know external objects exist.
Premise 2: I know that external objects exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, I know that I am not dreaming.

Then, in the selection provided, Moore does offer a proof of Premise 2, as follows:

Premise 1: Here is one hand, and here is another.
Conclusion: Therefore, external objects exist.

Finally, Moore claims he need not defend his Premise 1: “Here is one hand, and here is another,” because that’s not the issue for the skeptic. The skeptic only needs proof of the conclusion, “external objects exist.” Has Moore been successful in his proof?

Discuss: Watch Anil Seth’s TED Talk, “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality,” and then consider the following questions:

What are the two broad types of things that we are consciously aware of? Are there important differences or similarities in the ways we experience these two things?
Do you think Seth also believes G.E. Moore’s Premise 1: “Here is one hand, and here is another”? Why or why not?
What does Seth mean when he says “the brain’s best guess of the causes of sensory information” and how is that different from someone saying “the brain perceives objects”? How does Seth’s claim help to establish his conclusion that perception is active and not purely passive? Do you agree? Why or why not?
What does Seth mean when he says, “we’re hallucinating all the time; it’s just that when we agree about those hallucinations, we call that reality”? Do you agree that reality is a controlled hallucination? Why or why not?

Question: So what do you think? Do external objects really exist? Can we ever observe or have knowledge of the true nature of reality? Does this question even matter outside a philosophy classroom?

Feel free to also share any books, movies, or other fun media you’ve seen/enjoyed that ponders similar questions!

Reflect:

It is crucial this week to keep the following questions separate: (1) the metaphysical question, “What is the nature of reality?” and (2) the epistemological question, “Can we know the true nature of reality? If so, how?” Many mistakes are made by conflating these two questions. Have you seen any evidence of confusing these two questions in any readings or videos for Week 6?
According to G.E. Moore, he does not need to rule out the skeptical hypothesis that we might be dreaming in order to prove that external objects exist. Instead, all he needs for that proof is to observe his own two hands. However, others continue to argue that Moore must also prove that he has two hands—something Moore insists he need not prove. What do you think? Can we know that we have two hands or not?
In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, do you think you are inside the cave looking at artifacts or outside of the cave looking at real objects? How might you know the difference?
Finally, the big question, do you believe that the external world really exists and we can have knowledge about it or do you think maybe the external world exists or maybe it doesn’t, but because of limitations on human perception, we can never know the truth?

Belief in God

Read: St. Aquinas’s The Five Ways

Watch: Crash Course’s The Ontological Argument

Read: St. Anselm’s The Ontological Argument

Watch Lindsey walk you through Aquinas’ and Anselm’s Arguments

Watch: Crash Course’s The Problem of Evil

Discuss: After reading Aquinas’ “The Five Ways” and watching Crash Course Astronomy’s “The Big Bang” video, you should be prepared to answer the following question: what is a more likely first cause of the universe: God or the Big Bang? Why? Another way of approaching the question is to think about what we have more evidence for: God or the Big Bang? Why?

A third way of putting the same question: if we follow any of Aquinas’ arguments all the way up to the conclusion that there is a first cause of the universe, then what follows more logically: that this first cause is God or that this first cause is the Big Bang?

NOTE: even someone who believes that God exists and that God is the creator might believe in the Big Bang. There’s nothing logically inconsistent about the two beliefs. However, there may be better and worse arguments for each conclusion. Challenging one particular argument does not amount to ruling out the conclusion altogether.

If you’re interested:here’s an article by Stephen Hawking arguing for another way of understanding the Big Bang such that there is no such thing as “before the Big Bang” because in addition to creating space, the Big Bang created time itself (Einstein’s theory of general relativity says space and time are not two distinct things, but instead it is one thing called “spacetime.”)

Question: After watching the Crash Course video on the Problem of Evil, discuss the argument here. As a reminder, here’s how the argument is expressed in the video:

Premise 1: An all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good God exists.
Premise 2: If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good, then evil would not exist in the world.
Premise 3: Evil exists in the world.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The justification for Premise 2 is that God knows suffering will happen before it happens, he has the power to prevent it from happening, and if he’s perfectly good, then he should prevent it from happening. What do you think about this argument? Is it a good argument or a bad argument? Be sure to justify your answer by either showing that one of the premises is false or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises for some reason.

Reflect:

Do you believe in God? Why or why not?
Do you think belief in God can be justified by experience, such as perception or miracles, or do you think the belief can only be justified by pure argument? For reference, the former would be Aquinas’ arguments and the latter would be Anselm’s arguments.
Does the problem of evil make you doubt God’s existence at all? If not, how would you explain the existence of evil in a world created by an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God?

The Meaning of Life

Watch: Crash Course’s Existentialism

Read: Nagel’s The Absurd

Read: Wolf’s Meanings of Lives

Discuss: this week’s topic introduced you to two different approaches to the question “what makes a meaningful life?” Many people in today’s society would say that their goal is to live a happy life, or their one true wish for their children is to live a happy life. What is the difference between a happy life and a meaningful one? Should we pursue a happy life or a meaningful one, assuming the two types of lives are importantly different?

Take a few minutes to watch Emily Esfahani Smith’s TED Talk, “There’s more to life than being happy,” and then consider the following questions:

Explain each of Smith’s four pillars of a meaningful life.
Provide an example from your own life of how you’ve experienced in the past/present or how you hope to experience each of the four pillars.
What do you think? Is a happy life or a meaningful life better? Which sort of life do you want for yourself and your loved ones?

Question: For our final topic, I want you to reflect on all the topics for this course. What was the most interesting, new, or exciting philosophical idea we discussed? What made it so interesting to you?

In addition to the exciting parts (of which I hope there were many!), sometimes discussing philosophy can be frustrating or annoying. Was there anything you read, watched, or that we discussed that felt frustrating? Maybe the lack of a clear answer or something that was super confusing comes to mind. What was it? Vent to us all!

Reflect:

What makes life meaningful? This question might be answered in one of three ways: (i) life is absurd, (ii) pursuing projects that increase subjective feelings make life meaningful, or (iii) pursuing projects that increase objective positive value in the world makes life meaningful. Why?

Think Like an Abolitionist

A tragedy happened in Columbus this week: Police officer Ricky Anderson fired one bullet, killing 20-year-old Donovan Lewis. Police entered Donovan’s home, hunted him down with dogs, and murdered him. Such awful events are all too common. According to the Washington Post Fatal Force Database, 690 people have been shot and killed by the police so far in 2022 (as of August 31^st). As a comparison, according to the Gun Violence Archive, 456 people have been killed in a mass shooting so far in 2022 (as of August 31^st). Rationally, as Americans, we should be more afraid of being killed by the police than in a mass shooting—especially if we’re poor, Black, or brown.

This is a primary reason I am an abolitionist. I believe that the United States Police Force should be abolished. We cannot simply abolish mass shootings (though we could ban assault weapons), and so that makes lessening the harm from mass shootings more challenging. But when it comes to reducing the number of people murdered by police officers each year, there is one obvious solution: get rid of police officers. But I digress; my goal is not to argue for this position here. I’m working on a book about that, though, so stay tuned.

Instead, today, I want to give you an inside peek into how I think. As an abolitionist learning about the latest fatal police shooting, here’s what goes through my mind. Whenever I consider stories about the police, FBI raids, judge and jury verdicts, or other functions of the United States Justice System through the lens of someone who wants to abolish all of it, I recall a famous quotation from Albert Einstein:

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

A central tenant of my abolitionist view is answering this call to widen my circle of compassion. It provides the framework for me to expand my awareness with curiosity, primarily through asking questions, imagining situations from multiple perspectives, and hopefully increasing the size and number of my spheres of concern to include more awareness for more creatures. Once my awareness is expanded, compassion soon follows, but it takes practice and gratitude to get there. I invite you on the journey.

Sphere One

In the smallest sphere of compassion, where you’re restricted to thoughts of yourself and your loved ones, you might have the following thought: thank goodness my loved ones are safe. Learning about a fellow parent’s loss can encourage us to take stock and to hug our children a little tighter. That is surely a good thing. Out of curiosity, how could we take that seed of gratitude and expand it, just a bit?

Sphere Two

In the next sphere, we might feel compassion for folks affected by the tragedy with whom we identify in some way. Mothers instinctively think of Donovan’s grieving mother. Young Black men think of Donovan’s fear and pain. Police officers think of Ricky. I invite you to embody each of these perspectives. How would it feel if you are a police officer to think of Donovan’s grieving mother? If you’re white, how might you feel if you were a Black man living in Columbus, OH in the aftermath of this tragedy? Considering these different perspectives and imagining how others might be feeling right now is one way to expand the diameter of this sphere.

Check in with yourself. Is there a perspective you’re not willing to consider? Is there a person affected by the tragedy you’re unable to identify with or you refuse to even consider because you deem them unworthy of your care and affection? This is a growth opportunity. Try to find one, small thing you might be able to have some awareness of. Notice I said awareness, not compassion. Start with simply acknowledging that something might be difficult for this person; you don’t need to go all in on empathy in a growth moment. For example, I have a difficult time taking the perspective of the police officer because it’s nearly impossible for me to imagine ever choosing that profession in the first place. Nonetheless, I have never taken someone’s life before. I do not know whether Ricky has ever taken a life in his thirty years as a police officer, but I can imagine that coming to terms with this fact (as well as being on administrative leave and enduring the media attention and upcoming investigation) is putting stress and strain on him and his loved ones. That would be a difficult situation for anyone to endure.

If you find yourself saying “fuck him” to Ricky, then again, I invite you to sit with that feeling and imagine a different perspective. Other folks in this arena might be unable or unwilling to take the perspective of Donovan—a “criminal.” They think that if you don’t do anything wrong, then you won’t be shot by police. From what I’ve read, the arrest warrant for Donavon was for domestic abuse, assault, and the improper handling of a gun. And while we must remember that under the current American Justice System Donovan would be innocent until proven guilty, these are still very serious charges. As someone who has endured domestic abuse in the past, I tend to believe women (I’m making the statistically probable assumption here that the domestic partner in this case is a woman, but I’m open to new information proving me wrong about that), and so while the burden of proof is on the state, I tend to believe women when they say men beat them. Someone else—maybe a Ricky supporter—who believes that Donovan is a “wife beater who hid from police instead of opening the door when they first knocked,” may find themselves similarly saying “fuck him.” Both are genuine human responses. You do not need to conceptually align yourself with a perspective to see it.

While awareness of these different perspectives helps us to expand our spheres of compassion, I would never ask victims to identify with oppressors as that may cause significant harm. For instance, I would never ask Black men today to have compassion for cops. I will always draw a line at giving away so much compassion that it diminishes your own power. Stand in your power today. Leave that work to others and practice some community and self-care instead. You deserve it.

Sphere Three

In the next sphere, we might grow the number of people we consider affected by the tragedy. Who else is struggling today? I can imagine that the woman who reported Donovan to the police is having some conflicting feelings. While she may have been trying to keep herself safe, I can imagine she did not mean to start a process that ended with Donovan dead. That’s got to be very difficult to manage, emotionally.

I believe that the Chief of Police in Columbus, Elaine Bryant, a Black woman with children, likely feels stuck between a rock and a hard place. I imagine she feels a sense of loyalty and duty to her police force and to her Black community, and she’s trying to thread that needle. I don’t know much more about her or Ricky’s history on the force, but I feel for her, and I know she does NOT want her police officers out on the street murdering Black men.

What about the other two men in the apartment who were taken into custody? Why didn’t they answer the door for ten minutes? Were they afraid for their lives, having police banging around outside at two o’clock in the morning? Were they protecting their friend, Donovan? Did they also do something against the law (maybe they were high?) that they didn’t want to be caught for? They were handcuffed and taken to police headquarters. I’m not sure if they’re still there but spending a night or more in jail must be very difficult, regardless of the reasons.

Finally, we might expand further to include Mayor Ginther, the City Council and others who might be involved in the upcoming investigation, the brave and dedicated protestors who will come out in droves this weekend, the police officers who will face off with their dissenters, the other police officers at Donovan’s house that night who witnessed him being shot, the paramedics who initially treated Donovan, the Emergency Department doctors who declared him dead, and the friends and families of all the people mentioned so far. The more we understand our communities, the people involved in horrific events such as this, and how they all operate, the greater we can expand our awareness of the difficulties they face. The more we practice awareness and openness to their experiences, the more compassion will grow inside us.

Sphere Four

Can we expand further? I think we can reach out into the domain of societal institutions, higher than any particular individuals. We can ask deep, fundamental questions about how we created a structure that landed us in the midst of this tragedy. The central question for me is: why were armed police officers in Donovan’s home in the first place? Is this necessary to successfully “protect and serve?” You can see from the body cam footage that police officers outside have their weapons pulled, in hand, ready at the waiting. They’re anxiously moving from one foot to another, from one stance to another, clearly full of adrenaline as they pound the door, demanding entrance. It’s worth noting again that it’s two o’clock in the morning. Why are adrenaline-fueled, armed police officers banging on Donovan’s apartment door in the middle of the night? Is this the first line of action? Has he been notified in any other way that there is a warrant out for his arrest? Is there another time or place where police could arrest Donovan?

After the first two young men answer the door and are taken into custody, police officers on the scene decide to call for additional back-up from the K-9 unit. What changed to make the situation so dangerous as to request back-up? And the big question: if the person being arrested was a rich, white, middle-aged man living in Upper Arlington, how would this situation be different? I can tell you that the police would not be knocking in the middle of the night! They’d approach in broad daylight rather than under the cloak of darkness. They surely wouldn’t even think to call for K-9 backup. And I know they wouldn’t be so quick to conclude a vape was a gun. There is a deep bias in the minds of police that being on Sullivant Ave at two o’clock in the morning arresting a Black man is automatically dangerous, and that makes them more likely to take more severe action, thus increasing the probability of lethal force. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Sphere Five

We can expand this societal thought even further: does arresting, trying, and imprisoning one person make anyone else safer? But I’ll leave that thought for another day.

The Abolitionist’s Future

Finally, what happens next? There will be an investigation, and many people will be rooting for justice, which in their minds means that Officer Anderson will be found guilty of murder and sentenced to prison. As an abolitionist, I wholeheartedly want an investigation, especially one that could answer some important questions about this event. What caused officers to go to Donovan’s apartment at two o’clock in the morning and what could we do differently next time? What caused officers to call for a K-9 backup unit? How does bias of location, the nature of the arrest warrant, and race factor into this decision? Why did Officer Anderson—dog in his left hand—fire his weapon so quickly without nearly enough time to make a good judgment? Why do officers need to be carrying weapons at all? An investigation is helpful because answering these questions might help us prevent future Donovan’s from being murdered, lives cut far too short.

As an abolitionist, however, I cannot root for Ricky to go to prison. I understand and have empathy for those who are suffering today, and this suffering may lead us down a path of wanting Ricky to pay for what he’s done. We are human, after all. But we must also realize there’s no way for Ricky to pay his debt. Nothing will bring Donovan back. Nothing could ever happen to Ricky that is as bad as what he did to Donovan, and in my heart of hearts, embodying my highest self, I cannot wish for such horrors to happen to any living being. I believe that transformation comes when we focus on what we could do differently in the future to prevent such senseless tragedies rather than spending even an ounce of energy on backward-looking retribution (or revenge). Healing and prevention are the mantras of abolition.

I mourn with the community today, and I pledge allegiance to doing whatever I can to contribute to a future free from such deep wounds. In solidarity, sending light and love to all.

I’m Writing a Book!

Working Title: The End of Ethics

The Buck Moon by Jamie Hale/The Oregonian

I’ve been writing for some time about my yearly meditations, where I pick a word of the year to guide me. My first word was narratives in 2016, followed by boundaries in 2017, and then authenticity twice, once in 2018 and again in 2019; my 2020 and 2021 words are yet to come, so stay tuned for that. I’ve written about how each of those words led to massive changes in my life, changes I never thought could arise from simply thinking about one word for 365 days. This practice has deepened my relationships with others, enriched my understanding of myself, and improved my intuitive abilities. I highly recommend you give it a try. There’s no better time than now, under the magnificent super buck moon.

In addition to recounting past words, I’m posting about my journey through my current word of the year, voice. My hope is that you can see in real-time how I open myself up to the ways the word works through my life. I believe the openness to the word, the curiosity, the willingness to see where it leads all give enormous power to this meditation. It pulls us out of our heads, disrupts our typical patterns, and invites us to leave our safe spaces and explore. I think I’ve felt silenced for many years, and so choosing voice this year has encouraged me to express myself again. It’s helping me lift my inner voice with passion and stamina. Ultimately, it’s led me to writing a book. How exciting!

I had an epiphany a few months ago—more like a visceral flight of ideas—and ever since, I’ve been obsessively researching, planning, and discussing this new book I’m writing. Quite literally, I was sitting at a local restaurant’s bar, enjoying a glass of wine, and reading Philippa Foot’s beautiful book, Natural Goodness. I’m sort of known for reading in bars these days, ha. Anyway, I’ve been reading this one, tiny-but-mighty work of philosophical genius for nearly twenty years. It has notations in the margins I no longer comprehend, vestiges of my undergraduate honors thesis. I love this book. As I read it through new eyes, however, I felt a sudden rush of excitement. My heart began to race. My cheeks flushed. Suddenly it all made sense. Everything I’d struggled to understand as an undergraduate philosophy major, the parts of my dissertation that never quite sat right, and strange experiences teaching my own undergraduate students all came together in one, unifying conclusion: we’ve made a crucial mistake spending thousands of years trying to make sense of morality. It’s time to abandon the project. Instead, let’s set a new agenda for understanding human behavior that might be more fruitful. Here’s my working abstract, which is continually evolving:

What if the framework for evaluating some actions as right and some actions as wrong never existed? That’s my big question: what if we went back far enough in hypothetical time, before anyone ever judged an action as wrong, and instead of judging actions as right or wrong, we did something entirely different? Throughout the history of philosophy, we have assumed morality needed elucidation. We built complex theories of what moral terms mean, where morality comes from, what moral reasons are, the nature of moral facts in relation to natural facts, and normative theories justifying why particular actions are right or wrong. None of these theories is without devastating flaw. I will argue we need to start in a different place, and if we start anywhere but “I will provide a moral theory,” we will never get to a moral theory. If we stop assuming morality from the outset, we’ll discover there is no reason for it.
I will start with a pragmatic argument for abolishing punishment in the home and throughout society. A few surprising things will follow. Most importantly, morality won’t follow. Then I’ll argue that instead of acting on moral reasons, human beings more simply express their various mental states, including beliefs, desires, values, emotions, needs, and appetites. If we want to build a better society, our focus should be on proactively improving and enriching our mental states for success as a species rather than judging, evaluating, and punishing each other after the fact through the limited, flawed, and divisive lens of morality.

The thought surprised even me! I’ve been a believer in moral objectivism—the idea that there are moral facts independent of human beliefs—my whole (philosophical) life. As I sat at the bar astounded that I could even think this thought, I began to outline my argument. I wrote it all out in my notebook with my palms sweating and my forehead pressed into my left hand, seeing my way through the maze that had mystified me for decades, as if I suddenly had access to the bird’s eye view. I packed up my books and scooped my heart off the floor, then moved to another venue, my favorite local jazz bar. I pulled out my notebook, turned the page, and wrote the argument again, just to see if I still had it. And I did. I felt like I was on the verge of a panic attack. I decided to put the notebook away and wait until the next day to re-write it on my computer, just to see if I could. And I did again. I almost passed out from the thought of it. I simultaneously thought “this is genius” and “this is absolute nonsense.”

I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced the physical joy and chaos of a new idea, but it is overwhelming. How can my body know the truth before I do? The feeling of reaching both hands in the air, snapping a few times as you smile from ear to ear, then clap once or twice before pounding the desk, “that’s it!” It’s surreal. John Stuart Mill might’ve been right; intellectual pleasures might be of the highest kind. It reminded me of a familiar feeling, sitting in seminar or during a Friday talk, when suddenly I could feel in my chest I knew the problem, the crux of the issue, the Achilles heal. My body told me when I was onto something, and I trusted that feeling implicitly. I’d try to see where to wedge my way in, and the pricked skin and racing heart always confirmed when I was on the right track.

Since writing the abstract, an introduction, and working my way through an outline, I began researching what other, recent philosophical thought had been published on the theme of abolishing morality. I found some very interesting threads! There was a special edition of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice in 2007 dedicated to the work of J. L. Mackie, who famously argued for what’s called “moral error theory.” Error theory basically says that since there are no objective moral facts, all moral judgments are false. That is, whenever anyone says, “killing is wrong” or “keeping your promises is right,” they are saying something intelligible, but strictly speaking, such sentences are all false because there’s no such thing as wrong or right in the world. Error theory is often used as an objection in philosophy more than a viable theory (like the way relativism is used), and so this resurgence of adherents is remarkable.

The part of this thread I felt in my body, reassuring me I was on the right track, though? This special issue of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice features a paper titled “Abolishing Morality” from Richard Garner, who was professor emeritus at Ohio State, where I got my PhD! We even overlapped a bit. I had been his graduate TA for one metaethics course back in 2006 or so. Then he went on to edit a follow-up book titled The End of Morality in 2019. Unfortunately, he passed away in 2020 from COVID-19, at age 84. Not only am I connected to one of the main champions of the modern idea of abolishing morality, but he also serves as an inspiration to me. He was doing this important work in his seventies and eighties, after a long career in academic philosophy. He gives me great hope that good ideas can come from anywhere, at any age, in any circumstance.

A final thread. Dick Garner’s friend and collaborator, Joel Marks, featured in both the Ethical Theory and Moral Practice special issue and in The End of Morality, argues that morality should be replaced with what he calls “Desirism.” In a nutshell, Marks advocates for a view like my own expressed in the Authenticity posts that we should do whatever we want to do. There are differences that will be worth fruitful philosophical analysis, but the thread is there, which is very exciting to me. It’s always better to be connected to an existing literature than to be an island. I can’t wait to pull all these threads together.

As I stare at the glorious super moon this evening, I want to set an intention. I’m sharing it with you to hold me to it. This is the moon of power, and I want to harness it on this special day. I plan to keep posting bits and pieces of the book, working them out, testing out theories, begging for feedback. If you read anything here that piques your interest, reach out! Let’s get coffee or a drink and chat about it. Please also make all the recommendations. Is there something I should be reading? Tell me! Is there someone I should be following or a cool podcast I should listen to? Please send me all the links! Thanks for your support, friends. It means the world.

Income Inequality: Part 2

In Part 1 of the series on income inequality, I argued that being a “fiscal conservative” is a moral stance. One of the principles of fiscal conservativism says that we ought to balance the budget by cutting spending rather than raising taxes. In fact, a fiscal conservative will hardly ever encourage raising taxes.

The main reason a conservative doesn’t want to raise taxes is because she is opposed to redistributing wealth. We ought not take money from the rich, and just hand it over to the poor. (more…)

The Shame of the Privileged

“I personally think talking about it all the time just makes the problem worse.”

Racism is a difficult thing to talk about. We like to think we’ve reached equality. We like to think that soon enough, all the old racists will die, and racism will disappear with them. The problem will solve itself if we just give it enough time.

Shame is also a difficult thing. Shame is an emotion that represents the failure to live up to an ego ideal. We think of ourselves as caring, smart, funny, talented, moral, attractive, as a good parent, sibling, friend. We don’t simply think of ourselves these ways; we deeply value such characteristics. These are our ego ideals. On occasion, these ideas we have about ourselves are challenged. When others challenge the ideas we have about ourselves, we lash out in anger. We become defensive. We deflect your criticism by pointing out your flaws. (more…)

Commentary on “Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts”

Justin P. McBrayer recently argued in the New York Times that our children don’t think there are moral facts. Here’s what I take his argument to be:

Argument 1:

Premise 1: Common Core defines ‘fact’ as something that is true about a subject or something that can be tested or proven.
Premise 2: Common Core defines ‘opinion’ as what someone thinks, feels, or believes.
Premise 3: Common Core says all sentences are either facts or opinions.
Premise 5: Common Core labels all value judgments (any claim with good, bad, right, wrong, etc) as opinions, never as facts.
Conclusion: Common Core teaches that there are no moral facts.

Argument 2:

Premise 1: Common Core teaches that there are no moral facts.
Premise 2: The school teaches that students have certain responsibilities such as “do your own work.”
Premise 3: Premise 1 is inconsistent with premise 2.
Premise 4: Outside of school, if there is no truth of the matter about whether cheating is wrong, then we cannot hold cheaters accountable.
Premise 5: We do (and should) hold cheaters accountable.
Conclusion: Outside of school, there is a truth of the matter about whether cheating is wrong (i.e., there are moral facts).
Conclusion: We should reject the Common Core teaching that there are no moral facts.

I agree with most of McBrayer’s argument. It is a rather elegant one. But his argument has come under serious attack by Daniel Engber over at Slate. In what follows, I shall defend McBrayer’s argument against Engber’s attack. I think Engber has built an elaborate strawman, but when he takes him down, McBrayer’s argument still stands tall. (more…)