Topics Philosophy

Question It seems that by using philosophy, anyone can argue for or against anything (even if one plus one equals two in the decimal numbering system, or that if I am really sitting in a chair right now (what is a "chair?"). After all, I have found a few philosophical and academic articles arguing in favor of trivialism, which is possibly the most bizarre and absurd philosophical view ever. Is there such a thing as something being morally wrong to everyone in the literal sense? Are there actually philosophical literature or articles that support or present arguments "for" rape, incest, adult-child sex, the torturing of infants for amusement, serial murder, terrorism, cannibalism, bestiality, necrophilia, or similar things? I would not be surprised if there is at least "one" philosopher who supports one of those acts, or if there is at least one philosophical and scholarly article that argues in favor of any of those acts.

Accepted:
May 27, 2016

Comments

Not sure what to say about

Not sure what to say about trivialism -- but one thing you've put your finger on is that because philosophers tend to question the assumptions of ordinary thought, they will often defend claims that are surprising, controversial, or counterintuitive. The examples you mention (rape, incest, etc.) are ethical conclusions. But philosophers have defended a wide array of unconventional or surprising claims about knowledge (skepticism), metaphysics (we don't exist), and so on.

In ethics, it's not that rare for philosophers to defend unpopular claims. I'm not aware of any philosophers who defend rape, the torture of infants, or serial murder. But certainly some have asked not-silly questions about the taboo subjects you mention.
- On incest, many philosophers have wondered whether the practice is really harmful, violates norms of consent when it occurs between mature adults, etc.
- Regarding terrorism, many philosophers have questioned whether there is so clear an ethical line between terrorism and other forms of politically motivated violence that many already accept.
- As to bestiality, Peter Singer in particular has questioned whether the taboos against it are anything more than superstition.

My point is not to endorse (or to suggest that you ought to endorse) any of these particular claims. Rather, I mean only to emphasize that one of the goods philosophy provides is a kind of second guessing of what individuals and societies take to be obvious. Note that there are claims that philosophers raised doubts about in the past (e.g., racism or sexism) that were at one time taken as perfectly obvious by various societies or individuals. Philosophy is therefore often iconoclastic. And so long as such iconoclasm is not purely destructive (poking conventional wisdom in the eye just to provoke) but undertaken in a spirit of reason and integrity, it is one of the reasons to value the philosophical enterprise.