Horizon

What kind of philosophy?

Following the usual string of links I've come across a blog that I think Ben would like, at least. It's moderated by a professor of philosophy (and a Texan, at that) who appears to be very conservative, at least by my standards.

It's Anal Philosopher. And no, he doesn't mean that literally.

I came upon this post and since I can't comment there, thought I'd comment here.

When I was young I used to occasionally hear people, talking about over-population, conclude that more people would simply have to die, though it was (sigh) such a shame really, but what are you going to do? Of course, those people who would have to just die off "naturally" due to, say, a famine or plague, would be far away and -- it was taken for granted -- extremely poor. (What kind of people said such things? I don't know, I'm too old to remember such details. Let's just say I'm happy to be older now and able to choose who I associate with for the most part.)

So, at that age, I was very pleased with myself when I arrived at approximately the same counter as the Anal Philosopher. I think I got to use it a few times, too. It went like this: "Fine, if you think that, I expect you'll be killing yourself any time now, right?"

Well, I still think it's a fine retort in general, but I was taken aback when I saw the author apply this to people who believe that people should be taxed based on their wealth, and that the money appropriated thereby should be redirected to people who, just as an example, may not have access to things like healthcare. As it turns out, my failure to fund healthcare for at least one or two Americans invalidates my belief that all people deserve this and other services and that all should pay for them based on their ability.

Of course, I myself am off the hook in any case, as I don't really have any wealth. But still, the accusation stung a bit. It can't possibly be true, can it? In order to advocate for the poor and for a more egalitarian society, do I have to live in a cardboard box? No, I think there are serious problems with this argument. Well, at least one.

Let's say I believed that the US should conquer the world as soon as possible, but that for some reason a significant part of the electorate just weren't interested in doing so. In order to avoid being a hypocrite, and therefore win the right of arguing for world domination, would I have to invade Japan personally?

Why not? Because my personal attempt to take over Japan would be certain to fail.

Let's say, on the other hand, that I believed that listening to folk music was a morally reprehensible and utterly dangerous activity that should be abjured by all people (see the original post re: abortion). Would I then be a hypocrite if I listened to a Bob Dylan record here and there, on the side? Yes indeed, I would be.

And I think that's about all that needs to be said about that.

Posted by Alan Hogue at June 29, 2006 09:27 PM