Why Philosophy? Richard Yetter Chappell
From the Socratic Call to Be a Gadfly to the Ethics of Beneficentrism
What is philosophy to you?
So many things! At its most general, I associate philosophy with a distinctive kind of thinking. It's hard to characterize, but one attempt would be: "The disciplined exploration of logical space: elucidating and probing different candidate views to test how well they fit together and allow us to make sense of the world." (Crucially, our starting assumptions and intuitions tend to be an incoherent mess, though it takes work to reveal this.)
For me, philosophy is intimately tied up with a whole range of deeper commitments to "the life of the mind" and to really being guided by reason (rather than mere convention, intuition, or emotion—except to the extent that reason itself endorses taking these things into account), as far as is possible.
Of course, one can be a successful professional philosopher without sharing these deeper commitments. But I can't help but feel disappointed, and even a little betrayed, when I see other philosophers not even trying to be reasonable in this way (open-minded, free-thinking, receptive to and committed to rationally engaging with criticism of their ideas, etc.).
How were you first introduced to philosophy?
My first formal introduction was in high school Classics, reading Plato's four dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates. Other people had always struck me as disappointingly unreasonable creatures, so I found Socrates absolutely delightful. (Instantly corrupted, I aspired to be a gadfly when I grew up, corrupting other youths in my turn.)
But even before that, I was naturally drawn to philosophical questioning, trying to think more coherently about ethics, religion, free will, and so on. Such questions need no introduction.
How do you practice philosophy today?
Thankfully, as a tenured academic, I have a lot of flexibility here. I enjoy teaching: practicing philosophy in the classroom collaboratively with my students. And I've published three books and 20-odd academic papers that I'm proud of, with more in the pipeline. But the central medium through which I do philosophy, and the one I value the most, has always been blogging.
I love the challenge of trying to distill an insight down to 500 - 1500 words. I like the instant feedback, and the opportunity to argue back and forth with some who may not be initially convinced, but are at least interested enough to engage further. And I'm excited to be able to reach wider audiences (currently 5000+ subscribers), and hopefully help some to think more clearly about important topics.
If you instead meant the question to be one of methodology, often I just reflect on assumptions I find others making that annoy me. And then I try to explain where it seems to me that they're going wrong. Often, for example, people make very uncharitable assumptions about the psychology of a utilitarian agent. In such cases, I can simply introspect on my own moral perspective (which I take to be at least broadly utilitarian) and explain how their caricature mischaracterizes me and my moral concerns.
What is a philosophical issue that is important to you?
On a practical level, I care a lot about beneficentrism—the central importance of promoting overall well-being. I take this to be the driving normative principle underlying the Effective Altruism movement, for example. It's much more ecumenical than utilitarianism. I really think it ought to lie at the heart of any decent moral outlook, however pluralistic. (You can easily add constraints and prerogatives; those epicycles make little practical difference compared to the question of how centrally you do or don't attend to impartial beneficence.) Then there are fascinating and difficult questions in decision theory and population ethics regarding how best to extend beneficence to various limiting cases.
Theoretically, I think it's really important to get clearer on our normative concepts, what they signify, and in what ways they matter. (My current book project, Beyond Right and Wrong, takes up this task.) For example, I find it striking when people reason from the premise that there's no obligation to maximize the good to the conclusion that they have no reason to do more good rather than less. It's like they got so fixated on obligation that they forgot to care about anything—or anyone—else. This seems like the kind of mistake that clearer thinking could help us to avoid.
What books, podcasts, or other media have stood out to you as a philosopher?
I'll start with three books: Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons remains the most stimulating work of philosophy I've ever read. I also appreciate R.M. Hare's Moral Thinking—his distinction between the "intuitive" and "critical" levels of moral thinking is very clarifying. Finally, Peter Singer's Practical Ethics demonstrates how systematic, rational argumentation can illuminate important ethical issues.
There are lots of great philosophy blogs. Some standouts for me include Fake Noûs, Conspicuous Cognition, The Splintered Mind, PEA Soup, Richard Pettigrew, Joe Carlsmith, Bentham's Newsletter, and Astral Codex Ten (perhaps not technically a philosophy blog, but Scott Alexander writes with great clarity and insight across a wide range of philosophically significant topics; the world needs more public intellectuals of his ilk). I hope that some reading this may be inspired to begin another.
Richard Yetter Chappell is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Miami. He is the author of Parfit's Ethics, lead editor of utilitarianism.net, and writes about ethical theory and practice at goodthoughts.blog.
 | A guest post by
|