Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Woolery's avatar

Thanks for the piece.

> In their cloistered and ancient buildings, academics are in the middle of a war.

I don’t think they are. They might be in a struggle for power, or involved in a serious argument, but academics tend to avoid war fighting, let alone be “in the middle” of one. Unscientific people, the ones you say aren’t well equipped to be ethical, are generally the ones who find themselves put in that particular position of directly taking and saving lives. I think the conflicts academics are currently involved in are more centered around ideas.

> And so, ethics is, in fact, an empirically informed way of doing philosophy in that if you don’t understand what a human being is or what human nature is or how we work, then on what basis are you going to do ethics?

I don’t know. Do you own a dog? I love dogs. Some of the finest most honorable beings I’ve ever known have been dogs. If I were standing with one of the world’s top scientists in one end of my home, and say we heard a burglar break in the other end, I think there’s a decent chance the scientist says “run!” and without a thought slips out a window. I know for certain my dog would run directly at the burglar and defend me and my home with his life. Of course this same kind of moral dedication can be seen in service dogs of all kinds, and can take the form of gentle compassion just as easily. And they are far less prone to abandon their moral duty under duress than most people, particularly academics.

The job of caregiver is one of the most common, and low paying, in the U.S. and is associated with minimal education. I’ve known many of them through their care of a loved one with severe dementia. Most of them demonstrate a far more moral approach to other people than myself or any scientist I’ve ever known. They have gained their moral insights through firsthand observation of suffering and it appears to have given them greater perspective in this regard than many people who study texts on the subject.

There is a certain amount of courage, kindness, resilience, selflessness and grit that moral action necessitates, and I have never noticed that scientists have more of these attributes than the unscientific and in fact, it’s my impression that simpler people often exceed academics in this respect.

Expand full comment
Tom Welsh's avatar

Nice article, but I think a shade on the utilitarian side. That is, your discussion of the usefulness of science looks absolutely right - but it doesn't, as you acknowledge, really even touch the most important questions in life - why we are here, how we should live, etc.

I wondered, as I so often do nowadays, if you have read Iain McGilchrist's books such as "The Master and his Emissary". Because your article looks to me a bit left-brained. Unimpeachable on the "what" and the "how", but a bit stranded when it comes to the "why". For instance, mysticism is soppy, inefficient thinking. It's an attempt to stop thinking, open up to the world, and feel one's relationships to people, things, and the whole. Almost impossible to put into words, which is why it gets so little attention.

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts