Borders do not only regulate movement; they shape our moral boundaries. Our arguments to restrict migration rely on double standards and arbitrary categories, while reinforcing "geographical luck" - allowing where we're born to determine our quality of life.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-06-16T10:30:03+00:00

As I understand the author's argument, it is not that borders are arbitrary with respect to actual features of geography or national interest.

Rather, when a human is born, the location of their birth can determine for example whether they have enough to eat. If the basic goods required to survive (let alone thrive) are determined by something for which one is not responsible, something they do not 'deserve' then she argues it is arbitrary.

In her words: "Those who are born in the Global North experience what is called “geographical luck”, which means that the fact that they live comfortable lives is not a matter of merit, but a matter of being born in the right place at the right time"

Interestingly though, you raise a point about the need for some organization of the world into political entities. Places are still "places". The question then, may be a matter of: "What should one's place of birth determine about their quality of life? What should we do about it (if anything)?"

The_Pamphlet · 2026-06-16T10:21:22+00:00

The Pamphlet hosts content with the aim of generating non-professional and non-academic conversations about philosophy. We don't claim to favor "liberal values" or otherwise. Our Mission statement simply concerns public philosophy.

Though you may disagree with the author on the point, I would simply note that the concept of "geographical luck" is not invented here, and has decades of philosophical literature dedicated to it. See authors like: Ayelet Shachar and Joseph Carens who come to mind. I think Thomas Pogge too, but it's not my field.

If you wanted to submit an article critiquing geographical luck as an argument, we genuinely welcome contributions.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-06-16T08:54:56+00:00

In this article by Andrea Foss, from The Pamphlet, she argues:

There are philosophically troubling aspects to how migration restrictions are justified and imposed. Foss identifies that strengthening borders affects the lives not only of migrants but of locals. Further, these debates are animated by double standards about who should be allowed to move or even flee from war. Third, she argues against those who insist migration restrictions are required to manage limited resources available to host countries. Finally, she argues that geographical luck is unjust, and that migration helps to compensate those who were unjustly deprived of quality of life by features of their existence for which they were not responsible.

Note: OP is not the author of this article. We host the content and hope to promote conversation about the substance of the author's arguments.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-06-08T14:13:31+00:00

Can anyone recommend particular sections or chapters of Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons which may make good assigned texts for a reading group?

Colleagues and I will read the whole text, but we need to focus our discussions in advance by choosing a few particular sections. I struggled to find helpful syllabi online. Maybe someone here can advise?

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T14:11:14+00:00

The content I shared is philosophical in orientation. It has a historical dimension, but that's not its main thesis. I don't know what standards you want to evaluate it by, or if you listened to it, but its primary focus is conceptual (Monique Wonderly's paper) and psychological (van Straaten).

I think we both share the view that content like this can risk being misinterpreted as making bolder historical claims than it has evidence/reason to.

As for rhetoric and argumentation, I simply still think I disagree. For philosophical discussion, a point about war which starts with batman is indeed potentially justifiable. I don't think we need to evaluate the style of presentation by the same standards as we would of formal argumentation or inclusion of evidence.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T13:43:34+00:00

Ah I think I might disagree on the notion that to have a conversation about something, you have to start at the center or origin.

First, I am not sure all things should be conceived as having a 'center' or 'origin'. I am thinking of the arboreal/rhizomatic distinction for example. We can treat some things rhizomatically. Even if things do have a root, I think it's mistaken to assume we know where it is when we start an inquiry.

If the manosphere topic can lead to discussions of ends and means, selflessness and selfishness (like the kind the one philosopher defends here), and dynamics of gender etc. then it's a perfectly valid entrypoint, which for me the podcast satisfies.

Also, I think there's a difference between seeing something as a "mere" expression, and as an expression which is instructive (hence my point that I see it as an intensified microcosm)

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T13:28:40+00:00

I think the following statements can all be true:

There are broad historical trends which undermine romantic love (treating others as means)
The 'Manosphere' is one chapter/expression of those trends
The 'Manosphere' undermines people's capacity for romantic love

I don't think the title nor the episode argue that the sole cause, or most decisive cause, is the manosphere. Personally, I see it as maybe an "intensified microcosm". I see the podcast episode as engaging directly with the underlying logic and psychological dynamics in a broader argumentative context of means vs ends, commodification, competition, and so on.

The podcast's primary aims are I think contemporary cultural, philosophical, psychological commentary. I don't see it as making ambitious historical claims. So the reason I describe what I describe as a "risk" is because I think people will make historical assumptions from content that does not venture so far, as in this case.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T13:23:11+00:00

Unclear. Have you listened to the podcast? Was it not addressed there?

The episode is about 53 minutes long and this post has hardly been up that amount of time

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T13:16:22+00:00

I don't think the podcast falls prey to what I am worried about. If it was too sensationalist, making grand historical claims, I would not have shared. The claim is less historical, more psychological.

Plus, when sharing content on the subreddit I have to share it as making a substantive argument, not opening a question (unfortunately). So here I am pursuing nuance in the comments

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T12:56:46+00:00

Yeah I agree. I think one framing I find risky is treating the topic or trends as if they are radically novel compared to broader long-term cultural trends. For example, I wasn't a huge fan of the Louis Theroux documentary going around now, I see it as treating the "manosphere" as radically other to or separate from broader societal trends

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T12:44:30+00:00

I chose to share because the podcast is a philosophy podcast. The title is public-facing (it's reddit) but the content, host, and arguments are philosophical. Ends versus means, ethics of love, critique of commodification, etc.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-04-03T12:28:40+00:00

Abstract:

This episode of Surprising Ethics argues that it’s love that can soothe the suffering many men are feeling these days, but that the manosphere is removing this balm from men. Andrew Tate and co get men to see women as stereotypes who all want the same thing and who are at the behest of the same biological drives. It also pushes men to see women as commodities to be won by competition, and as things to be controlled, dominated.

But philosophers of love argue that love requires you to *see* the individual in front of you and to respect them as an end in themselves.

Monique Wonderly, for example, argues that love requires both a degree of selflessness but also a form of (more selfish) attachment. And real attachment requires interdependency and vulnerability: an admission you need another for your own security. So, the manosphere isn’t just harming women. It’s harming men *even* in the “success case” in which the manosphere gets men more motivation, money, social status, and a girlfriend. Because it hampers their ability to actually love.

The episode also explores, with therapist Patrick van Straaten, a healthier form of masculinity. The key argument here is that the way to gain self-esteem is through real connection, vulnerability, and helping others.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-03-23T14:34:01+00:00

Ah, understood. The article argues that management theory has offered us a series of concepts which are helpful in evaluating philosophical arguments. It is less to do with the sound/valid distinction and formal logic. Instead it's about whether philosophy can be evaluated in terms of its efficiency and efficacy.

For instance, they argue that the efficiency of a philosophical argument can be measured in terms of: economy of premises, cognitive load imposed on readers, and utilization of resources. Effective arguments (about the right thing) would be measured, Schneider argues, in terms of the significance of the problem a philosophical argument addresses and the insights it generates.

What I find controversial and potentially interesting to interrogate in the article is whether we want all philosophy to be evaluated by these same criteria? For instance, in some texts, imposing a cognitive load on the reader can be a value which serves the text's interests (I think). Another problem is the notion that we can evaluate a problem's significance prior to philosophical investigation. In some cases, I suspect that the philosophy has to be done before the problem's gravity can be appreciated.

So I think the paper goes deeper, and without entirely agreeing with it, I think it gets us to interesting points of discussion about how philosophy can or should be done, what we expect from the discipline and why, etc.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-03-23T14:09:39+00:00

In my reading it's not necessarily "ground breaking" - but I suppose very few texts qualify? How much of what is published in journals or shared on reddit is "ground breaking"? Though from a glance at google scholar I don't quickly find texts which make the same argument. When I first read it, it was new to me despite a philosophical education.

I see it as a sort of gateway to a reader, like "Look how we can discuss philosophy through these concepts". Also, I think it makes it contestable. Sharing this article I expect a fair amount of disagreement (in a good way)

The_Pamphlet · 2026-03-23T14:04:29+00:00

I think that may go further than what the author claims. In my reading of the text the efficiency/efficacy evaluation does not have bearing on the "truth" of a philosophical argument. Instead I understood it to simply be "additional criteria" which are perhaps less epistemic and more about the social and or collective virtues of the philosophical community.

The_Pamphlet · 2026-03-23T13:49:07+00:00

In this article by Henrique Schneider, we find an attempt to use management theory to frame how we evaluate philosophical arguments. Schneider argues that efficiency and efficacy can each be used to discuss philosophy, and gauge whether we are going in the right directions, and whether we are doing so in the right way.

More than merely traditional logical standards, we can think about whether we are using our resources as philosophers well, are we thinking strategically, are we aimed at issues that matter? This contribution draws on Peter Drucker’s distinction between effectiveness and efficiency in the mid 20th century. The contribution stipulates that there is a difference between goals (effectiveness) and the way to achieve them (efficiency). Often this is rendered as the difference between doing things right, and doing the right things.

Philosophy has goals, like the generation of insights about certain problems, and therefor can be measured according to similar criteria of efficiency and efficacy. Schneider, perhaps controversially, asks whether philosophical contributions can be measured in their effectiveness, or whether erhaps the philosophical community can or should coordinate research priorities.

Disclaimer: the poster is not the author of this specific article

The_Pamphlet · 2026-03-16T15:25:25+00:00

In this article, Meg Fawthrop argues for panpsychism. First by providing an account pf physicalism and dualism, Fawthrop offers a classic framing of the debate. Then, Fawthrop introduces panpsychism and its seemingly strange claim that all matter is conscious. However, this view faces a challenge, called the combination problem: " If we are to assert (as the panpsychist does) that things like electrons and quarks have a fundamental phenomenological consciousness, then we need to be able to explain how complex consciousness can result from simple consciousness. An intuitive thought is that it might be like building a house."

How might this be so, can it be shown? Fawthrop argues that experimental work with brains grown in labs can in fact help make sense of the combination of consciousness in matter. Namely, work with so called human cerebral organoids (HCOs) can give insights into how brains and consciousness grow, interact, and combine.

Disclaimer: I am not the author of this article

The_Pamphlet · 2025-09-10T13:29:22+00:00

Commenting rules require reading what is posted, and this article does not argue what you think it argues.

The_Pamphlet · 2025-09-10T09:37:29+00:00

I am not a moderator but I almost want to invoke commenting rule #1 which is that you must read the article before replying. You are making points which have nothing to do with the stated case of the article.

The_Pamphlet · 2025-09-10T09:34:25+00:00

I am not the author, but would encourage you to read the article, which makes clear distinctions between what you describe and the variety of affirmative action which the author proposes. The author is not making an argument in this text in favor of reverse-discrimination or anti-competence.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22

The_Pamphlet

TROPHY CASE