Keith Burgess-Jackson

10-16-87 . . . For several years now, under the influence of Peter Singer and R. M. Hare [1919-2002], I’ve been an avowed utilitarian. But I confess to having second thoughts these days, and for the strangest reason. It seems to me that moral life is richer than utilitarians make it out to be. It is richer in both the number of values that exist and what it is that makes an action right. Utilitarians are consequentialists, which means that what makes an action right is its consequences. They are utilitarians rather than some other kind of consequentialist because of the value that they promote: utility, happiness, or pleasure and the absence of pain. But as I say, this is all too simplistic. Utilitarianism leaves no place for rights, duties, persons, obligations, and roles. It glosses over these differences and focuses on what one ought to do. Every situation, however different from others, is reduced to the formula “What action will have the best consequences?”. At this point, I’m not prepared to abandon utilitarianism. Suffice it to say that I’m seriously rethinking my commitments. It may turn out that I become a deontologist, like Bernard Williams [1929-2003]. [Both Williams and Singer were students of Hare at the University of Oxford.]

I’ve decided to revise my punctuation conventions. Every now and then, in my reading or writing, I paused to reflect on the illogic of certain conventions, such as placing a period inside a trailing quotation mark. Where the quotation was of only part of the sentence, logic seemed to dictate that the period go outside. Recently, I discussed this in a letter to David Cortner, and he responded. Then, the other day, I noticed that Gilbert Ryle [1900-1976], in his 1949 book The Concept of Mind, opted for logic over convention. This gave me courage. So as of today, I’ve decided to follow suit. Here are examples of my newfound rules:

(1) I yelled “Get out of my hair!”. (Conventionally, there is no period after the trailing quotation mark.)

(2) “Dresses are feminine”, she said. (Conventionally, the comma comes before the trailing quotation mark.)

(3) “I just finished reading Williams’s ‘The Self and the Future’.” (Conventionally, the period comes before both trailing quotation marks.)

There is no doubt that this new convention will cause problems for me. Editors will insist on following standard rules.

I lived at home with my parents and brothers until I was 22 years old. We had sit-down family dinners almost every day. One of the biggest shocks of living on my own was having to cook my own food. Thanks, Mom, for all the wonderful meals you prepared. Here is a New York Times story about family meals.

Read this op-ed column by David Brooks. Key paragraph:

Politics, as you know, is a tainted profession. Professional politicians cannot serve their country if they do not win their races, and to do that they must grapple with a vast array of forces that try to remold and destroy who they are.

This is a classic dilemma. To achieve one’s ends, one must adopt unsavory means. There are three resolutions:

1. Consequentialism. The end justifies the means. In other words, the means are irrelevant; only the end matters.

2. Absolute deontology. Certain means may not be adopted, no matter how important the end.

3. Moderate deontology. There is a presumption against certain means, but they may be adopted if the end is important enough.

See the difference? In the case Brooks describes, the consequentialist would do whatever it took to win the race. The absolute deontologist would refuse to do certain things, even if it meant losing the race. The moderate deontologist would compare the good that can be done by being elected with the evil of adopting the means, and if the good significantly outweighed the evil, he or she would adopt those means.

Addendum: I would appreciate it if someone would make a flowchart for me, which I will post here as an addendum. The first yes-or-no question is, “Is there a presumption against certain means?” The “No” arrow leads to consequentialism. The “Yes” arrow leads to a second yes-or-no question, “Is the presumption rebuttable?” The “No” arrow leads to absolute deontology. The “Yes” arrow leads to moderate deontology and a third question, “How important does the end have to be to rebut the presumption?” Some moderate deontologists require a great deal of importance and are said to have a high threshold; others require less importance and are said to have a low threshold. Since importance is a matter of degree, so are thresholds. The lower the threshold, the closer the moderate deontologist is to consequentialism. The higher the threshold, the closer the moderate deontologist is to absolute deontology. Think of consequentialism as 0 and absolute deontology as 1. Moderate deontology ranges from .000001 to .999999.

Addendum 2: It’s 22 October 2007. Stephen Krueger made a flowchart for me. See here. Thanks, Stephen! It’s perfect, right down to the color-coding.

Thank goodness they don’t do things like this at baseball games.

Here.

During this part of my childhood, one of my greatest amusements was experimental science; in the theoretical, however, not the practical sense of the word; not trying experiments—a kind of discipline which I have often regretted not having had—nor even seeing, but merely reading about them. I never remember being so wrapt up in any book, as I was in Joyce’s Scientific Dialogues; and I was rather recalcitrant to my father’s criticisms of the bad reasoning respecting the first principles of physics, which abounds in the early part of that work. I devoured treatises on Chemistry, especially that of my father’s early friend and schoolfellow, Dr. Thomson, for years before I attended a lecture or saw an experiment.

Note from KBJ: I hate to say it, but John Stuart Mill was a world-class nerd.

If this isn’t the best album ever made, then I’m a sheep‘s godmother.

To the Editor:

Re “The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us” (column, Oct. 14):

Thank you, Frank Rich, for calling attention to the troubling reality of American apathy that has allowed the Bush administration to violate our most cherished principles of justice, democracy and human rights.

Along with millions of other Americans, I have participated in a multitude of events protesting the policies of this administration, including a famously underreported march of half a million people in Washington right before the start of the Iraq war.

Along with my friends and family, I have written letters, signed petitions, contacted my Congressional representatives and actively campaigned at the grass-roots level. None of it has helped.

I am profoundly discouraged. What can we do?

Maureen Ratigan
Natick, Mass., Oct. 14, 2007

Note from KBJ: Read up on democracy.

Here is a review of Anthony Kronman‘s new book. Note that Kronman has both a doctoral degree in philosophy and a law degree.

Thanks, Steve. It’s a great time to be a Yankee hater.

If reason is the coin of the realm for philosophers, what good are they in a country that has abandoned it?

Will Nehs

Note from KBJ: The job of a philosopher is manifold. Among other things, it is to (1) dispel confusions; (2) identify fallacies; (3) reconcile apparently contradictory propositions, such as “God exists” and “evil exists”; (4) make assumptions explicit, so that they may be evaluated; and (5) piss people off. The last item got Socrates killed. These days, philosophers suffer a different (but worse) fate: We are ignored. Better dead than unread.

Try writing Haiku
You will find it difficult
But quite rewarding

My maternal grandfather, Harvey Burgess, was born 127 years ago today. I’m 50. It looks like we skipped a generation, doesn’t it? Then again, maybe my mother lied to me about my birth date. Maybe I’m 75 instead of 50.

Here.