Subtitled Philosophy Behind the Headlines, this book by British philosopher (and relatively prolific author) Baggini attempts to explain both how and why a philosophical outlook is useful when it comes to real-life issues, and illustrates varying outlooks and theories with high profile media stories from the UK and US. Topics addressed include private vs public morality (Clinton/Lewinski), trustworthiness of science and how this has been eroded (GMO foods/BSE), the concept of value and how this is determined (the Millennium Dome vs the Tate Modern), how cults and mainstream religions differ (the Waco siege), among others.
The thread that runs throughout the text is that reasoned argument and logical thought rarely enter the debate and, despite the fact that they could provide precisely this degree of clarity, philosophers themselves are rarely consulted (perhaps, Baggini argues, because people expect philosophers to come up with a definitive answer, rather than a "well on the one hand X, but on the other, Y" discussion they often end up with).
I found the text well written, particularly for an educated lay audience interested in the issues Baggini raises. However I did find that he quite often built his position on the back of a statement of philosophical opinion without acknowledging that a differing position would invalidate the following argument. For example, in the chapter about abortion Baggini discusses the concept of humans - a biological status which applies to all genetically-human individuals regardless of other factors - and persons or personhood.
The concept of personhood is contentious, not least because even like-minded philosophers agree on the required elements, but the theory basically boils down to personhood being a state of cognition (including elements like consciousness, self-awareness and awareness of the passage of time), independent of physiology. So under this theory an infant/vegetative human is not a person, but an alien/ape who develops the aspects of personhood is a person. In this theory the life of a person (regardless of genetics) trumps than of a non-person.
After briefly discussing the theory of personhood, Baggini segues to the argument that, as a non-person, a fetal life is not of moral consequence, and abortion is therefore not morally problematic. I happen to agree with the concept of personhood, but I think he fails to acknowledge that, for readers who disagree with his premise (those, for example, who believe that humanity is the result of divine intervention), the following argument will not be valid. I'm not saying that I think the argument is invalid, or that Baggini ought to tailor his argument to encompass different opinions than his own, just that there is a lack in his failure to acknowledge that this position is not universal.
This aspect aside, I found Making Sense readable, accessible and a valuable addition to the field. - Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment