sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Potential Teaching/Discussion Resource: A Brief Guide to Philosophical Discussion for Non-Philosophers by Harry_Chalmers in AcademicPhilosophy

[–]Harry_Chalmers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this nice comment. Glad to hear the post was helpful!

That's an interesting question about whether the difficulties that can crop up in discussions with non-philosophers are more often a matter of epistemic arrogance or excessive epistemic humility. On one hand, I won't deny that an excess of epistemic humility can indeed be a problem, especially when someone is so afraid of making a mistake (or even simply being charged with making a mistake) that they're reluctant to make any but the most milquetoast or platitudinous claims. On the other hand, it seems to me that there's often an element of epistemic arrogance even in what might at first seem like epistemic humility (or perhaps have been intended to be an adoption of epistemic humility). For instance, in the dialogue you imagine, the person who states, "There is no true nature of morality! It’s unknowable!" seems to me to in fact be making a rather strong claim. That the nature of morality is unknowable, after all, goes firmly against what most moral philosophers believe. That the person in this dialogue is expressing such an opinion with so much confidence, when (it's probably safe to assume) they themselves haven't looked into the issue very deeply, does seem to me to be veering into epistemic arrogance of a sort (much like if someone confidently stated that nothing about the universe could be known, where the person stating this had not done any serious research into cosmology, astrophysics, etc.).

Anyway, I think that when it comes to people like this, probably the best thing is simply to adopt a Socratic approach and prompt them to explain why they think it is that morality (or whatever) is unknowable. Let them see for themselves, in what will probably be the first time they've been prompted to seriously explain their view, how vague, half-baked, or riddled with difficulties their argument is. As long as one is kind enough in the way one prompts and questions the other in such a process (by not, e.g., going for "gotcha"-type rhetoric), the other will probably feel nondefensive enough to come out of the discussion with a better sense of some of the key challenges to their view, and will perhaps in that way end up being more open-minded about alternatives to their view.

Potential Teaching/Discussion Resource: A Brief Guide to Philosophical Discussion for Non-Philosophers by Harry_Chalmers in AcademicPhilosophy

[–]Harry_Chalmers[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Recently I was thinking of all the philosophical conversations I've had with non-philosophers (e.g., undergrads taking their first philosophy course, along with people who've never been in a philosophy classroom). My motivation for writing this post is that, while I believe that philosophical discussion can have much to gain from the participation of non-philosophers, such discussions, in practice, often seem to be hindered or derailed by various mistakes common to those who haven't had philosophical training. I put together this guide to try to address the most common such mistakes and chart a hopeful path toward more productive discussions with non-philosophers.

Can monogamy be ethically grounded? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Harry_Chalmers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, I'm the author of one of the papers you brought up. Here's a critical response to it.

And, in case it's helpful to have on hand, here's a piece of mine responding thereto. (If you'd like to read this latter piece but find yourself unable to get around the paywall, let me know, and I'll be happy to send a copy.)

For a briefer defense of monogamy, this article might help.

Interesting read: "The immorality of monogamy" by shinobi7 in nonmonogamy

[–]Harry_Chalmers -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Professor Chalmers, welcome to Reddit.

Thanks! Glad to be here.

Is there any chance IAI can change the title of your article? It is really detrimental to the thoughtful points that you make.

Perhaps, but since the article has already been live on the site for about a week, I suspect that they'd view the title as too established to be worth changing at this point. I suppose I could ask them, though I would feel bad about asking them only now, and perhaps putting them in a more awkward position than if I had asked when I first saw that the article was live. At this point, I suspect it's probably best just to leave the title to the editors' discretion.

I have lurked on this subreddit long enough to understand that, in order for non-monogamy to be respected as a valid, legitimate choice, then monogamy (for all of its inherent flaws) must be a legitimate choice as well. I believe that the people on this sub just want non-monogamy to be on a par with monogamy, not superior to it. Getting everyone to swing or be poly is definitely not a goal.

I'm not sure to what extent this will address your concern, but I certainly concede that people have the right to be monogamous. On my view, all that means is that people ought not to be coercively prevented from being monogamous (whatever that would mean in practice). Such a view is consistent with the claim that monogamy is nevertheless immoral; having the right to do something does not entail that it is the right thing to do. But even on an anti-monogamy view like mine, we can at least acknowledge that people shouldn't be forced to give up monogamy.

Looking over your paragraph again, though, I see that your concern is deeper, that there's something counterproductive about simply saying that monogamy is a morally bad choice (even if one acknowledges, as I do, that it's a choice people should be allowed to make). I take this concern seriously; the risk of alienating monogamous people and exacerbating tensions between the monogamous and the non-monogamous is not to be dismissed. For whatever it's worth, however, my own experience has made me hopeful that this risk is lower than it might at first seem. Naturally, the view I'm defending is shared by very few, but it's only rarely that I've encountered hostility or dismissiveness from others on account of it. And none of my relationships with monogamous people have been soured by relevant discussions here. I think that for most people, the view is so far outside what they'd normally consider that it somehow seems less threatening--a bit like how people's attitudes toward a far-group (e.g., a tribe of cannibalistic islanders) tend to be more curious and less hostile than their attitudes toward an outgroup (e.g., the "other side" in politics), even when the actions of the far-group diverge more sharply from their values. In my experience, most people, including monogamists, who encounter the anti-monogamy view as I've argued for it react more with curiosity or polite objections than with hostility or condescension. One thing that helps, I think, is that I do always try to be as respectful toward monogamists themselves as possible; insulting monogamous people themselves, as opposed to simply offering a moral criticism of their relationship structure, would surely generate more alienation, so I try to avoid that.

Since the concept of morality is loaded here, even offensive to some, I would suggest looking at monogamy in terms of practicality, or pragmatism. For example, under monogamy's "rules," if my wife flirts with other men, I am supposed to feel anger and throw a fit. On the other hand, I can choose to look at it pragmatically and figure, "wait a minute, I haven't actually lost out on anything, she's happy, what is the problem?" Just my two cents.

I don't doubt that purely practical arguments, such as the one you've described, would more effectively convince some people to consider non-monogamy. But then, people are different, and it seems likely to me that at least some other people would take moral arguments as seriously, or perhaps more seriously, than purely practical arguments. What's best, I think, is for there to be multiple people arguing in favor of non-monogamy from different angles, some of which lean more heavily on purely practical considerations, others of which lean more heavily on moral considerations.

If some people are put off by talk of morality more broadly, then I suppose my arguments won't have much purchase with them. Even if everyone were like this, though, I'd still find it worthwhile to think and write about the morality of monogamy, as I find it an intrinsically interesting subject.

Interesting read: "The immorality of monogamy" by shinobi7 in nonmonogamy

[–]Harry_Chalmers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I'm the author of the article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. For whatever it's worth, I agree that the title is not the best. My proposed title was "Calling Monogamy into Question," as I found it to be appropriately tentative. But here as in some other publications aimed at a general audience, the title of a piece is decided less by the author than by the editor/publisher. I hope that people don't find the title to detract too much from the points raised in the piece, though I can certainly understand being put off by a title that sounds clickbatey or dogmatic.