A Philosopher’s Point of View

Thinking Philosophically about Life, the Universe and Everything

Who I am.

I am a husband, a father, a friend, a brother. I am also a philosopher. Many might think that sounds odd – the pursuit of truth, beauty, and wisdom an anachronism in an age of social media and artificial intelligence. Perhaps even worse, a naive pursuit of the facile in a time of need for practical and prudential people. I am committed to the philosophic project, but my work in normative and applied ethics and political philosophy makes what I do particularly relevant at the moment.

What this is about.

Simply put, this blog is a philosophical perspective on everything from politics to foreign policy to law to the genius of Terry Pratchett. We find ourselves in a moment where the political and material motives of those with power are served by manipulating us. By dividing us. By exploiting everything they come to know about us.

A philosophic perspective requires that one think critically about matters, both abstract and practical. It is a great salve, a prophylactic against such manipulation and exploitation. It is a discipline that focuses on ideas and arguments, reasons and justifications. In so doing, it enables us to talk critically but constructively across our ideological divides – though I doubt that anyone could question the genius of Terry Pratchett. I hope I find interlocutors of great passion and good will.

recent posts

”I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” attributed to Voltaire.

This may be apocryphal, but it captures what it means to have a right to freedom of expression. It does not require you to lionize the speaker. It doesn’t even require that you remain indifferent to what others have to say. It implicitly recognizes that you might find what others have to say is offensive to you or perhaps even simply wrong.

In the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk and the effort to silence Jimmy Kimmel, it is important for us all to understand what it means for each of us to have rights in a community of rights-holders. As to the latter first, being a rights-holder in a community of rights-holders, has its own internal logic. Since each right gives rise to correlative normative burdens, the rights you claim for yourself are not only rights held by the other members of the community, they serve as a limitation on your rights. The correlative burdens implicit in each rights-holder’s rights limit the rights of others.

But, more to the point, what does it mean to have a right to free speech? To understand any right, we must understand the right’s constitutive elements. Less technically speaking, what is it a right to, what implications does it have for others, and whose relationships are defined by the right? To have a right to free speech and expression, is to have a claim to think for oneself, to speak one’s mind regardless of what others think without interference from others. It is not about agreement, approval, or endorsement of the views pressed.

Implicit in this understanding of the content of the right to free speech – what it is a right to – is a limitation. In a community of right-holders, one is also obligated not to interfere with the right to free speech held by others. This has implications beyond mere coercion and physical force. We ought not use our speech to cause harm to others. Speech that directs actions or “incites” violence breaches that limitation. What counts as an incitement to violence is ambiguous at the edges, but it is not meant as a back door to limiting offensive speech. Neither Kirk’s nor Kimmel’s speech came close to that line.

Perhaps most important for our understanding of the role rights play in our public and political lives, is that rights include a zone of discretion that permits individuals to act in ways or to say things that are offensive to others, but not to harm. What this also means is that we can (and should) separate our judgment of the moral character of an individual or their actions from the right they have to speak their mind. One need not lionize Kirk or celebrate Kimmel to defend the right we all have to think and speak freely.

What Trump could Learn from the Melian Dialogue

I am sorry for the absence. The holidays got away from me. On to what I want to share …

There is much that Donald Trump could learn from the Melian Dialogue. The lesson might not, however, be what many might expect from those who are familiar with Thucydides’s famous work. In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides recounts a confrontation between the inhabitants of the island of Melos and the Athenian military during the Peloponnesian War.

The Athenians wanted the Melians to abandon their neutrality and declare their fealty to Athens. The Melians, believing that the gods and justice were on their side, declined to submit and pay tribute to Athens; arguing instead that the Athenians should allow them to remain neutral and free.

Unmoved by the appeal, the Athenian general gave the Melian leadership an ultimatum, concede or face destruction. Sound familiar?

The Melians again appealed to the principles of justice and argued that there was a strategic advantage to Athens if they chose to allow Melos to remain free, thus appearing merciful and gaining notoriety amongst the Greeks.

The Athenian general rejected both arguments. And in perhaps one of the most infamous quotes in political thought said that justice only existed amongst equals, and that in the relevant circumstances “[t]he strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”

The Melians refused to submit. In response, the Athenians carried through with their threat, killing the military age men, and enslaving the women and children who were left alive.

If that were the end, the lesson is a simple transactional one. When there is a disparity of power, the strong bully the weak, get what they want, and the weak must learn to accept their fate or know that their resistance will be futile.

This was not, however, the end.

Before discussing the events that followed, it is worth noting that even in this limited understanding of the implications of the Melian Dialogue and what it tells us about the relations between people in general, and the Peloponnesian War in particular, it is a story about what the Athenians chose to do. They were not compelled to do so.

The Melian Dialogue is about what was the case, NOT about what ought to have been. The fact that we can, does not mean that we should.

The strong have a choice. They need not be cruel or vicious. They are free. They can choose to refrain, to show grace, to be merciful, to engage in charity, to be compassionate, just, or virtuous. This is a responsibility, a burden that ought to be taken seriously.

Notwithstanding this, and even if we remain committed to some form of realist lesson to be drawn from the Melian Dialogue, one cannot adequately understand that lesson without taking a longer view. What was in the best interest of the Athenians is not defined by that single choice.

Like all political communities, Athens existed before the confrontation with Melos and after it. Its interests were not defined by the benefits it could gain from this single interaction. A proper understanding of its interests should take into account the fact that it exists over time.

If we consider what happened after Melos, the lesson we learn is not the transactional one that many take away from this single confrontation. Athens ultimately lost the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans uniting with the Persians to deliver a humiliating defeat to Athens.

There is reason to believe that the action by the Athenians at Melos left them more and more isolated. Those who might have aligned themselves with Athens could no longer trust them. Athens became a pariah.

Thus, under an informed realist view, even the strong have to have a view that goes beyond the choice in front of them, pressing their immediate advantage costs literal and political capital. Had the Athenians thought of their interests in a more long-term and enlightened manner, they would have recognized that allowing the Melians to remain neutral would have cost them little and built the sort of trust and reputation that would have served their interests better.

I don’t know how much Trump or those in his circle really care about how much political capital they spend, or whether they lead us to ruin, but we should. This is not a partisan call to arms, rather it is some simple advice on how we ought to view the choices our leaders make.

What interests or impulses are they acting on? Have they weighed the long-term costs and benefits to the people they serve? Never mind the fact that we should all want them to give at least a moments thought to what the right thing to do is.

Posted in

Leave a comment