We no longer live like the ancient Greeks. Modern science, psychology and other disciplines have taken some of the original concerns of philosophy and specialized them. What is left for philosophy? Should philosophy itself end? Should it still be taught?

Even in ancient Greece some philosophers were seen as detached observers of the world around them, never paying attention to practical matters. Many of us, too, are familiar with the image of the philosopher who only wants to be more clever than others, pointing out their mistaken beliefs but offering no useful advice. The traditional visions of the philosopher portray him as an intellectual who can't fix the toilet, or bake bread. Much of this stems from the impersonal way philosophers write, with a few notable exceptions.

As Soccio himself points out, it’s too early to know how important any of the people discussed in Chapter 18 (7th edition) will be to our society or the world. That’s why we should view these contemporary topics as a preview of some of the possible future topics of interest and importance. But before diving right into the two primary thinkers (Singer and Nussbaum), there are a few more preliminary issues to discuss.

How should we understand philosophers?

First of all, how should we understand the positions of philosophers? That is, how should we understand their beliefs and wisdom, how can it be interpreted? One way is through autobiography, or the life circumstances of a philosopher. Or we could understand philosophers through advocacy (promoting the views of philosophers by taking sides based on their gender, ethnic, or economic circumstances).

Many have critiqued Modern (Enlightenment) philosophers for the following: with rare exceptions, these thinkers have failed to recognize that they have personal perspectives and circumstances that influence their philosophical positions. This makes it the case that philosophers are only targeting very specific (usually economically prosperous) sections of humanity. Furthermore, Modern philosophers are accused of separating their ideas from the concerns of everyday life.

But do philosophers need to have experiences before they philosophize about them? For instance, can a philosopher discuss the suffering of life in a poor neighborhood if she has never suffered herself in this way? Karl Marx, after all, was himself a poor person who had experienced the suffering of life at the level about which he wrote. Can a man discuss women, and vice versa? These are tough questions to answer, and the debate goes on. As Soccio points out, these issues extend beyond philosophy. Who is qualified to theorize about whom? Can latino working class folks talk about black working class folks? Can a white female present a solution to the suffering of Korean males? Is there an independent standard by which we can judge these things? What is it?

Objectivity

Is there no value to the idea that people should be objective (completely unbiased)? Is there such thing as purely detached objectivity? Even if objectivity is possible, are there times when it’s not a good thing? Is there truth to the notion that there is a male bias in the history of ideas, including philosophy? The Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan points out the gender bias in science and other disciplines that has been ignored for so many years. How can both men and women be OK with the fact that all the examples used to prove various theories ignore half the species: women? How can this possibly be seen as not biased or “objective”? If these disciplines are devoted to truth or improving human life, there is clearly a problem here.

If we confine our reasoning only to the contemporary Western world, we miss out on the fact that wisdom can take other forms in different cultures. This is one of the reasons why thinkers like Confucius or Lau-Tzu are often ignored in the West. In the context of our culture, some of what these Chinese thinkers said does not make sense. But in the context of Chinese history, it makes perfect sense. Some of these cultures are not built upon the rationalistic model that developed in ancient Greece, and that we emulate in the West to this day. So some Westerners are reluctant to see Chinese thought as “philosophy” and they’d rather see it as “religion.”

The progression of philosophy

Can philosophy ignore claims against its own objectivity and bias? Absolutely not, otherwise it wouldn’t be philosophy. Philosophers base their conclusions on arguments and evidence, and when both indicate strong biases, those biases have to be taken into account.

Does this mean that there is no value to studying the ideas of some of the thinkers we’ve studied? Absolutely not. There are still valuable reasons for studying Marx or Plato. The lessons we learn from them still apply in many areas of life, and can still help people on an individual basis. However, what the charge of bias does do for philosophy is allow it to progress further. We can take the lessons from the history of philosophy while also appreciating the fact that the discipline is currently changing and evolving for the better.

(continued below right)

Peter Singer (1946 to Present)

Do people sometimes need to be made uncomfortable? Do people sometimes take so much of the world for granted that they need to be shaken out of their stupor? The Australian philosopher Peter Singer thinks so. Because he relentlessly follows his beliefs to their conclusions and because he believes some quite controversial things, Singer is discussed not just among philosophers but in the non-academic media.

One of his most controversial beliefs is that, in certain cases, doctors and parents should be able to prematurely end the life of a severely retarded or disabled child, if those doctors and parents feel that the life of the child will be filled with too much pain. Controversial, no?

Singer on animals

Singer is also a famous proponent of animal rights, in some cases over the rights of humans! His book Animal Liberation sold an incredible amount of copies for a philosophy book. Singer works at Princeton university where he has received death threats. The university has even seen protests as a result of Singer’s beliefs.

Singer applies utilitarian ethics to many of the problems of our time. This comes from the principle of utility: act always to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utility here refers to something that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.

Let’s return to animals. Why is it that we believe a human life is worth more than the life of an animal? Why should we be allowed to experiment on animals and not humans? Is it because animals don’t have souls? Where is the proof that humans have souls? Singer asks us to consider permanently disabled unconscious orphan humans, suggesting that experiments on such beings are more humane than experiments on conscious animals like dogs. Singer argues against the idea that human life is sacred, just because. It’s obvious, says Singer, that all sentient beings can suffer. It should be suffering, not reasoning ability, that matters. These utilitarian beliefs have led Singer and many others to become vegetarians.

Singer and world poverty

Singer also talks about world poverty, and the fact that most Americans and the members of other rich countries do not live in total poverty. Because of this, Singer thinks that people making a certain amount of money are obligated to give away a certain portion of their earnings to help people living in true poverty. Singer gives away one fifth of his income, so we can't accuse him of failing to practice what he preaches.

In his New York Times article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” (link is to the original article, if anyone wants to check it out), Singer discusses the hypothetical case of Bob—a person who would rather save his expensive car than save the life of an innocent child. We immediately object to Bob’s choice, but are we so different? As the text points out, donating $200 can transform the life of a sick two-year-old into a healthy six-year-old. If you have this information at your disposal and you don’t decide to contribute money, how can you judge yourself any better than Bob? asks Singer. What moral difference exists between these two situations?

One could worry that they don’t really know whether the money will reach the child and whether the child will actually be helped. But the figure of $200 actually takes these problems into account. There is this difference between us and Bob: Bob is the only one who can save the child, while hundreds of thousands of Americans are capable of donating $200.

And after donating this $200 can you feel better about yourself? No, says Singer. You shouldn’t even feel good about treating yourself to a nice dinner, because not eating a nice dinner for a full month could allow you to save up another $200 to donate. Is eating out for a full month worth the life of a child?

But at what point do you stop giving? There will always be children to save. Singer thinks that anyone with extra money should continue to give it—there is no other conclusion to draw. Want to take a vacation? Want to add an extra room to your house? Uh-uh, says Singer. That money could save the lives of hundreds of children.

Singer gives some figures that may be different now (10 years after the article was written) but the principle is the same: any money you are spending on luxuries should be given away. You should only keep money for necessities—eating, sleeping, etc. This means that families making more money are obliged to give away more since these families have a surplus of wealth for luxuries.

It's easy for this to make us uncomfortable, and this is exactly what Singer wants: to create moral tension within us. We are all faced with difficult choices like Bob, thinks Singer. We just don’t realize it. What are the moral implications of not accepting Singer’s arguments? What do you think of Singer in general? Is he mistaken? If so, is it possible to argue against him? How?

(continued below left)

Martha Nussbaum (1947 to Present)

Martha Nussbaum is a contemporary American philosopher who works at the University of Chicago. She believes that too many academics and intellectuals fail to use their theories to help the human condition. Nussbaum herself has a strong background in classical philosophy (especially Greek and Roman). She often references ideas that come from Roman Stoicism. She thinks philosophers and academics should constantly consider the relation between their theories and the application of those theories. We can see that she and Singer share a similar approach to philosophy.

In the text, Nussbaum is quoted as saying: “Exclusions of people and exclusions of their lives from the domain of knowledge went hand in hand.” Nussbaum is referring to the atmosphere at one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, which she attended: Harvard. Her point seems to be that some areas of learning or historical groups are excluded unnecessarily, even at places like Harvard. To be true students of learning, we should appreciate the different types of citizens of the world.

Philosophy for everyone

Nussbaum dislikes the idea of setting up philosophy as an activity that is only suited to specialists. As a result, much of her writing is non-academic. She believes that philosophy should be made accessible to a wider audience. Some believe that philosophy should remain specialized. What do you think? A series of books which I have written for takes the stance that philosophy should be available to the masses: the Pop-culture and Philosophy series. Some believe that these books are "dumbing down" philosophy. And yet, there are people who would never have any experience with philosophy if books like these, and Nussbaum's, didn't exist. I'll let you be the judge.

Rationality and emotions

Nussbaum also challenges what she sees as an overreliance on rationality, pointing out that, while rationality is important, one can take it too far. This sort of attitude sees the emotions as unnecessary or detrimental to rational thought. But Nussbaum doesn’t think emotional intelligence is bad and she says as much in her books The Therapy of Desire and Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of the Emotions.

Nussbaum thinks philosophy can be more than simply mind games and puzzles. Throughout all her criticism of philosophy, she acknowledges the practical value of ancient philosophy and its importance to contemporary life. Still, Nussbaum points out that philosophy is not a luxury that all people of the world have: those in extreme poverty can’t think about Plato; they can only think about where their next meal will come from.

But Nussbaum thinks philosophy itself can help to heal some human suffering. We’ve already seen the way Peter Singer used philosophy to “wake people up.” Nussbaum points out some of the goals and achievements of Stoicism and the way Stoics focused their attention on immediate issues of suffering and fear of death. We can also see philosophy as a guide, Nussbaum says. Although it will never cure the problems of humanity, it can steer us toward happiness and piece of mind. It can make us better people from the inside.

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Nussbaum points out the problems with philosophy, and she devotes much of her work to helping women flourish around the world since they have been ignored so much in history. Still, her solution to philosophy’s problems is not to discard it. In fact, she recognizes some of the good about the discipline, which calls for public debate instead of dogmatism, examining beliefs instead of accepting them without question, and learning how to learn.

As the text points out, it’s easy to either write philosophy off as naïve theorizing, or to overestimate it as being the cure for everything. Some see it as a theoretical discipline and some see it as something they incorporate into their daily living. The choice is yours.