Philosopher Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown) has given What’s Wrong? permission to repost the following comments, which she initially posted on Facebook:
Oy. We go around and around this. Stop fat shaming Donald Trump. Not because I give one rat’s ass how mean you are to Donald Trump, but because every time you fat shame Donald Trump you fat shame every fat person on Earth. Just stop it.
And don’t tell me how the real issue for you is that he is lying about his weight. First, we all know he lies. This is not news. He lies about things that actually matter, unlike this. Second, we live in a culture where people are under enormous pressure to lie about their weight and I bet many of you who are mocking him have done it too. Third, if all you cared about was the lie, you wouldn’t be re-posting unflattering pictures where you think his fat looks funny and gross because hahaha oh look his belly is hanging.
Just stop it. It’s hateful.
Philosopher Mike Huemer (Colorado) has given What’s Wrong? permission to repost the following comments, which he initially posted on Facebook:
I see that Bill Miller has given $75 million to the Philosophy Department at Johns Hopkins (https://www.bizjournals.com/…/bill-miller-donates-75-millio…). Background: Miller is a brilliant investment manager who, it turns out, once studied philosophy at Hopkins and believes that his philosophy training helped him to think clearly and cogently.
I hate* to rain on anyone’s parade, but this is among the most wasteful charitable donations I’ve ever heard of (apart from gifts to even richer universities, like Harvard). Let’s review (a) what this money will accomplish, and (b) what else could have been accomplished with a $75 million charitable donation. [*Note: Here, by “hate” I mean “very much enjoy”.]
(a) Hopkins will use the money to hire 9 more philosophers, and provide more funding for graduate students. This does not mean that 9 new brilliant philosophers will be created. Rather, it will most likely simply move 9 already-successful (and already well-paid) philosophers from other schools to Hopkins. These philosophers will do pretty much the same stuff they were already doing, but with more money.
Of course, the schools they leave will then try to hire replacements; on net, there will be room for 9 more people in the profession of philosophy. This means, roughly, that an expected 9 marginal philosophers will stay in the profession who otherwise would have left – that is, 9 people who would have just barely failed to make it in philosophy will instead just barely make it. Of course, there is a lot of unpredictability, but something like that is the *expected* impact of a change of this sort. Note: “marginal” is here used in the economic sense.
In addition, some graduate students will have better accommodations, or less financial strain during graduate school. Perhaps this will occasionally make the difference to whether they stay in philosophy or leave. If so, this might be a benefit to the ones who stay . . . or it might very well be a cost, since philosophy is not that great of a career for most people (again, esp. the ‘marginal’ people).
Also, society can look forward to a slightly increased production of ‘philosophy’, that is, more articles and/or books in philosophy – added to the *tens of thousands* of such articles that are already being produced every year, and already going almost completely unnoticed because we have thousands of times more of them than any human being could read.
Note again, the expected net effect is to increase production by the *marginal* philosophers, not the top philosophers – i.e., some people who would have just barely failed to get a research job will now just barely get one. The *top* researchers would have continued doing research either way; now they’ll just have a little more money.
Is this marginal increase in the quantity of philosophy a social benefit? No, it isn’t. It obviously isn’t, for two reasons:
(i) We already have way more philosophy than we know what to do with; if anyone pays attention to these additional marginal philosophy articles, that attention will come at the expense of *other* philosophy articles.
(ii) Most philosophy that people write is false. We know that because published philosophy papers on the same question usually contradict each other. We should expect the added, marginal philosophy articles to be even more likely to be false, and less likely to be interesting, than the average existing philosophy article. So probably, the main effect of these added articles will be to take attention away from better articles. That is actually a social harm.
(b) What else could have been done with $75 million? According to rough estimates from GiveWell, the most effective charities save lives at a cost of around $3000 per life. This means that, instead of the above effects, Bill Miller could have taken that same money and saved ~25,000 people’s lives.
Now, I’m no utilitarian. I’m not just complaining that Miller failed to maximize utility. It can be rational to fail to maximize utility. But when you are specifically *giving to charity*, I tend to assume that the purpose is to do good for others. If so, it’s just irrational to give to a philosophy department.
You might say: maybe his purpose wasn’t to do good. Maybe he just had positive feelings toward the philosophy department where he had studied, and he was partial to those people. But then what he should have done is given money to those individuals – e.g., his favorite professors. Now his gift is going to go to *other* professors who are presently at other schools, to make them move to Hopkins. Also, some money will go to future graduate students whom Bill Miller doesn’t know. So this form of partiality makes no sense to me.
If you’re trying to do good for the world, give to GiveWell or something like that. If you’re trying to help people that you personally like or have a special relationship with, then give to those individuals. In neither case should you give to a university.
Fresh from this morning’s newspaper:
DEAR ABBY: A few days ago, my daughter had a sleepover at a friend’s house, and the girl’s dad broke my daughter’s eyeglasses by accidentally stepping on them. He said he would pay for them. In the meantime, I glued them together.
Fast forward to two days later, and our dog finished the job and broke the side that was still OK. Is the dad still responsible for paying or is he not, since my dog used the glasses as his chew toy? — BLIND AS BATS IN FLORIDA
Readers of What’s Wrong? may be interested in this CFP from the incoming Editor of Public Affairs Quarterly:
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Public Affairs Quarterly on
“Race and Public Policy”
This special issue will feature articles that bring philosophical analysis to bear on issues involving race and public policy. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: affirmative action, racial profiling, the Black Lives Matter movement, hate speech, hate crimes, reparations for slavery and other historical injustices, implicit bias, race and health, race and medicine, race and technology, race and the criminal justice system, race and the environment, race and education, race and sports, race and ethnicity, race and immigration, race and identity, and race and inequality.
Submissions on any philosophical topic concerning race and public policy will be considered. Submissions should be in Microsoft Word format and should be double-spaced and prepared for blind review. The journal prefers manuscripts of 6,000-9,000 words in length but articles outside these limits may still be considered. Articles intended for consideration for inclusion in this issue should be submitted by December 31, 2018 via the journal’s online submission process at http://ojs.press.illinois.edu/index.php/paq/. Questions about potential submissions should be directed to the Editor, David Boonin, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
A special guest post by Philosopher Michael Huemer (University of Colorado)
I think the practice of soliciting letters of recommendation for academic positions is both foolish and immoral.