It is often said that criminals lack a sense of morality. If this is taken to mean that criminals don't understand the difference between right and wrong this is demonstrably false. In fact a great deal of successful criminality – I mean the profitable kind rather than say drunken violence on a Saturday night – depends on a nuanced appreciation of moral norms that is often much more sophisticated and thorough than their targets, together with a willingness to ruthlessly exploit them. They are accomplished moral anthropologists and parasites upon morality. Consider the con-artist and the extortionist.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Monday, 13 December 2010
Morality vs Ethics: the problem with trolleys
"Aha" says the Moral Philosopher triumphantly, polishing his monocle ferociously with a large handkerchief. "You have contradicted yourself! If you say yes to the first case you should say yes to the second, for you have already revealed your acceptance of the principle that one person should be sacrificed for the many."
Sunday, 5 December 2010
‘I bring good news about our bourgeois lives’: Why business is good for your soul
Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce is a bold attempt to rehabilitate the much maligned bourgeoisie as the focus of a positive inter-twining of capitalism and ethics. Who are the bourgeoisie? People with middle-class values, temperament, and position. People like us. McCloskey argues, building on her extensive reading in economics, history, philosophy, religion and ethics, that we should recognise and embrace our bourgeois identity. For it is an ethical way of life that is not only instrumentally successful (showing up in our ever increasing wealth and freedom), but intrinsically valuable (showing up in the meaningfulness and richness of our middle-class lives).
Monday, 15 November 2010
A Critique of the Modern University part II: Research
I previously argued that universities fail at education, partly because academics are so committed to the life of a scholar: they want to learn, not teach (see part I). So perhaps the real contribution universities make to society comes from their research? On the one hand universities do produce a lot of it; on the other hand it is rarely useful to the rest of us. The struggle for real and important knowledge requires - surprise surprise - more than just setting up an academic bureaucracy and giving it money.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
A Critique of the Modern University part I: Education
Universities have become an increasingly significant part of the economy and modern life, affecting the lives of millions of people. But what do they really do for us? The most important arguments for the social value of the contemporary university system are its contributions to education and research (see part II). Unfortunately universities currently fail at both.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Why is Heterodox Economics a Joke?
Heterodox economics isn't taken seriously by anyone else, is unlikely to be taken seriously at any point in the future, and hardly seems to take itself seriously. Why would you? Heterodox economics has a massive inferiority complex and no self-discipline.
Monday, 4 October 2010
What has the EU done for You, lately?
As everyone knows, the EU has been tremendously successful in achieving its geopolitical goals 1) peacefully contain the dominant continental power, Germany, and 2) save Eastern Europe from the collapse of the USSR (just look at the former Soviet republics to see what would have happened otherwise). But these achievements have the drawback of being deeply dull, and even worse, about things that didn't even happen. What has the EU done for You, lately?
Saturday, 25 September 2010
What's the point of diversity?
Diversity is supposed to be massively important and in need of much protection, for example from the homogenising forces of globalisation: a Starbucks on every street, oh the horror! Diversity has associations with nice things like freedom (more choice), beauty (more variety, more forms), tolerance ('let a thousand flowers bloom'), and truth (more possibilities to explore mean more chance of hitting on the truth of the universe, etc). I suggest however that unless we are more specific about what what we mean by "diversity", talk about its value is essentially gibberish.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Analytic Vs. Continental Philosophy
Analytic philosophy is rationalistic: rigorous, systematic, literal-minded, formal (logical), dry, and detached. It is modelled on physics and maths and is particularly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world. Continental philosophy is humanistic: reflexive, literary, essayistic, charismatic. It is modelled on literature and art and is particularly popular in France, Germany, and Latin America. These two traditions dominate contemporary philosophy, and they are largely mutually incomprehensible. This is unfortunate since their strengths and weaknesses are somewhat complementary.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
What's really new about Behavioural Economics?
Behavioural economics is the new kid on the economics block. It's young, brash, and pushing to take over from the ageing neoclassical orthodoxy. It has a new vision of how economics should work, but does it really see anything new?
Monday, 30 August 2010
Diagnosing and Refuting Conspiracy Thinking
The difficulty of conspiracy thinking is its pathological character; the problem of conspiracy thinking is the enormous danger of false positives. One way to identify and challenge conspiracy thinking is to evaluate its internal coherence: 'Do these claims even make sense in their own terms?'
Sunday, 1 August 2010
The philosopher Vs. management theory
Matthew Stewart has a PhD in philosophy but despite this managed to get, and keep, a job in management consultancy. His book The Management Myth provides an entertaining and insightful analysis of the theory, history, and practise of that mysterious but ubiquitous cult of the modern world: "management".
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Who really owns cultural treasures?
Artistic and archaeological treasures are scattered throughout the world, often quite far from their places of origin. Is there something wrong with that? Who really owns such cultural treasures as the Elgin Marbles (sculptures from the Athens Parthenon) or Vermeer's paintings (17th century Dutch master, whose paintings are scattered through W. Europe and the USA)? Post-colonial nations in particular are quick to argue that such works were stolen from them (as indeed so much else certainly was), that their continued place in museums in New York, Paris or London is a continuation of colonial attitudes, and that they must be returned to their country of origin. But how are such claims justified? There seem to be 3 main ways of staking a claim on such works: national identity, law, and the "cultural heritage of all mankind"
Friday, 23 July 2010
Four Ideas of Sustainability
Sustainability concerns the relationship between humans and their natural environment over time. But there are various ethical understandings of that relationship with quite different implications. Two popular accounts actually repudiate human interdependence with nature by either making human interests completely subservient to a sacred nature, or by making nature completely subservient to human interests. Gro Brundtland's famous definition points in the right direction by focussing on the goal of meeting humanitarian needs in the present and the future, but her picture of human interests is too narrow and technocratic. What we need is a definition that is humanistic without necessarily being human-centred.
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Martha Nussbaum lectures Europe on religious accommodation: The 2010 Unseld Lecture
Martha Nussbaum is an extremely American-liberal philosopher with a strong interest in US constitutional law and freedom of religion [previously]. She has recently been promoting the tradition of religious accommodation she finds in American legal and political history to Europe, including at the 2010 Unseld Lecture at the University of Tübingen that I attended and which this essay is a response to. Unfortunately Nussbaum's lecture was more an assertion of the universality of a particular American model of relations between state and religion than an argument for its relevance to a European audience, with our quite different legal traditions, politics, social make-up and history.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)