Joel Marks on The Mystery of Moral Authority

I have an Amazon review by Joel Marks of The Mystery of Moral Authority. Marks "gets" and likes the book, so check out what he has to say.

Marks concludes: "'The Mystery of Moral Authority' covers a wide range of material in a very short space, and does so clearly, adequately, and fairly. Anyone in a hurry looking to learn about moral skepticism, or even moral theory more generally, would do well to pick up this book."

Alice Dreger on left-wing censorship of ideas

This story is such a clear-cut example that I'd be tempted to dismiss it as atrocity propaganda... except that Alice Dreger is a scholar whom I respect and view as honest. If events happened in anything like the way she describes - and I have no reason to doubt her word in what is very much a factual, step-by-step account - we're seeing somebody ostracised and otherwise punished for opinions.

The situation is that she was asked for permission to republish an essay, in this case her piece entitled "What If We Admitted to Children that Sex is Primarily About Pleasure". So far, so good. After some negotiations, the piece was actually republished. But then it was taken down because in other work by Dreger she has expressed views that the publisher disagrees with. That is highly illiberal. It sends the message that your work will not be published, irrespective of its merits, if your publicly expressed views on other matters are not considered acceptable.

Dreger is, of course, well known and she has a range of publishing opportunities. But many other people who share her views on various issues may not have her kind of bargaining power (which she'd probably consider not all that great in any event). The effect is to add to a cultural climate where open, honest debate is chilled.

This is not, of course, government censorship. But if we value the liberty of thought and discussion we will not fetishize government censorship as a unique evil. Indeed, some government censorship, such as efforts to ban revenge porn, may have very little effect on the liberty of thought and discussion: in such cases, no opinions or ideas on general topics are being suppressed. We should all be able to find ways to express our ideas and opinions without resorting to those sorts of attacks on individuals.

Government censorship is, nonetheless, a special concern (partly because of the frightening powers wielded by governments and their agencies). But on the gripping hand, there are many ways, falling short of government censorship, to stifle and distort the free expression and discussion of opinions and ideas. A policy of blacklisting the writings of particular individuals, as has happened here to Dreger, is just one of those ways.

If Dreger has some incorrect views on trans rights issues, then by all means dispute them. But don't ostracise her for them, and don't smear her as some kind of transphobe when she is nothing of the sort. Those are silencing tactics. That is authoritarianism.

Weekly self-promotion - on The Moral Landscape

This week, I'm promoting my lengthy and searching review, from 2010, of The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. If you have an interest in moral theory, including metaethics, check it out. My positive views on these topics are developed at some length in my latest book, The Mystery of Moral Authority, but writing a long review of Harris's book, explaining what I saw as its problems, cetainly assisted in clarifying my thoughts.

Much of the review is negative in the sense of raising doubts rather than developing a positive case of my own, but it is not a negative review in the sense of claiming that Harris has produced a bad book or one that doesn't merit an audience (I'm as surprised at the number of people who absolutely loathe The Moral Landscape as at the number who embrace it fairly uncritically). Negative in one sense or not, the review does, partly by implication, sketch a general thesis about moral theory. To see how I developed the full thesis, five or six years later, there's The Mystery of Moral Authority if you're interested.

A review of X-Men Apocalypse at PopMatters

I liked this review of X-Men: Apocalypse by Jack Fisher on the PopMatters site - and I agree with almost all of it. The movie is, as Fisher suggests, a strong finale to the trilogy that began with X-Men: First Class, and, indeed, it's a fitting conclusion to the six X-Men movies that started with the original X-Men back in 2000. Through a circuitous route - involving an altered timeline as a result of the previous movie's time-travel plot - Apocalypse leaves the franchise in a good place for further instalments. But yes, it's a strong punctuation mark.

If more X-Men movies are made by Fox without a reboot of the franchise, the filmmakers can move on with a workably stable base, and with new potential for storytelling in the wake of Apocalypse's resolution (at least for now) of the dramatic conflict between the visions of Professor X/Charles Xavier and Magneto/Erik Lehnsherr.

This time round, the Xavier vs. Lehnsherr conflict plays out on an enormous scale, reaches a kind of equilibrium (you'll see what I mean), and along with the cataclysmic spectacle offers much that's emotionally moving.

I still hope to give this movie a fuller review, complete with spoilers. I'm a bit sad to see it not doing as well at the box office - especially in the US - as might have been expected. Perhaps it lacks the high concept of Captain America: Civil War, which is about heroes falling out and fighting each other, and it may simply not have had a good hook for mainstream critics who aren't especially invested in the characters and their conflicts. But for my money it may actually be a better movie than Civil War, impressive as the latter is. As Fisher elaborates in his review, Apocalypse has no obvious flaws for what it is ... but more than that, it has plenty of heart.

In addition to the lukewarm reception from mainstream critics, who perhaps wanted more (obviously) novel themes, there have been unfavourable reviews from some fans who seem disappointed by lack of focus on their particular favourite characters. If you're at all invested in X-Men mythos, don't be put off by those reviews. Perhaps the emphasis of the franchise will shift, in future, to younger characters, such as Storm, Cyclops, and Jean Grey, with very well-cast actors now in place for them. But until then, X-Men: Apocalypse takes care of business superbly.

Following up on Immortal Engines

As previously noted I've been reading Immortal Engines: Life Extension and Immortality in Science Fiction and Fantasy, ed. George Slusser, Gary Westfahl, and Eric S. Rabkin. My impression remains, as I said in the previous post on this, that science fiction (not to mention literary fantasy) tends to be hostile to the ideas of immortality and life extension.

In "Alienation as the Price of Immortality" (pp. 125-34), S.L. Rosen discusses the unsympathetic approaches taken to immortality in Anglophone science fiction and fantasy. After identifying the negative way in which immortality is treated, especially when it is deliberately sought, this piece concludes that "The implication is that there is a basic cultural rejection of the idea of immortality and longevity."

However, some of the book's chapters do identify work within the SF field that presents immortality more positively. Perhaps surprisingly, some feminist SF falls into this category, not to mention more obvious examples such as Robert A. Heinlein's Lazarus Long.

I was surprised at the book's introduction by Rabkin, who is especially hostile - almost abusive - in his attitude to very the idea of immortality. This attitude may typify what we find in most science fiction and fantasy - and in much other literary work - but as I noted above there are exceptions, and in any event it's startling to see a literary scholar, writing in that capacity, lay out such a position, in such a tone, on a substantive moral and philosophical issue. He concludes by asserting that "Immortality is a self-defeating fantasy, a desperate defense against death."

Well, perhaps he's right. But not everyone agrees, and he doesn't put much in the way of argument for his position: it's more a matter of quoting various literary texts that he thinks support it. In any event, the introduction to such a volume would normally lay out the themes and issues to be discussed, giving some idea of what is going to be covered in the various chapters to follow. It's not a big deal that Rabkin has departed so far from expectations on this occasion, but it does look cranky and odd.

Gawker's gutter journalism - and worries about freedom of speech

(This article was originally published on The Conversation on 17 July 2015. I am republishing it because of subsequent - including very recent - issues surrounding Gawker and its interpretation of free speech. Read the original article.)

Over the past 24 hours, Gawker, the controversial gossip blog owned by Gawker Media, has earned some extraordinary and entirely justified opprobrium. It brought this on itself by posting a prurient and cruel story about the alleged sexual conduct of a finance executive employed by rival media company Condé Nast.

The link I’ve provided above is not to Gawker’s site, but to an archived copy of the particular post. Given the way this news story has gone viral, I cannot protect the name of the individual accused of hiring a gay prostitute, but I can at least do something to minimise adding clicks on Gawker’s site. Though it will have little effect, I likewise won’t name the smeared person. That will mean one less direct link between his name and Gawker’s allegations. Still, the damage has been done: there is little we can do ameliorate it, since the post has already been seen by a vast online audience.

Gawker’s prurient post

As Yezmin Villarreal accurately describes the Gawker post (writing at Advocate.com), it alleges that a named finance executive “tried to hire a gay porn star for sex at a cost of $2,500.” Villareal adds, again accurately, “The [Gawker] story contains screenshots of text messages and photos that allegedly identify the man, who is married to a woman and has children.”

The man concerned is a senior executive in a large company, but he is not a politician or in any other sense a public figure. He is not a morals campaigner, or an anti-gay campaigner, or a person who could justly be accused of public hypocrisy if the allegations turned out to be true. Even if there could be some circumstances in which such a post might be justified - which I doubt - this is remote from them. The post appears to be pure clickbait, displaying a callous, if not outright malicious, attitude to an individual and his family.

Worries about freedom of speech

I am a free speech advocate, a somewhat prominent one. I’m very suspicious of government censorship, and I strongly support the rights of artists, intellectuals, and ordinary people to express themselves frankly and fearlessly.

Even where government censorship is not involved, I worry when I see ideas, opinions, and cultural productions (such as literary and artistic works) interpreted unfairly or censoriously. In many cases, I’ll defend individual speakers and artistic creators, and their books and movies, and the full range of cultural productions that can have meanings and influence our thoughts. In those many cases, I ask for a degree of charity, sensitivity, and complexity of interpretation sufficient to give writers, speakers, artists - and ordinary people - their due.

I can’t, however, say much in defence of Gawker, particularly when it is Gawker and its author that have used a very large public platform to single out and smear a specific private individual. To me, it’s gratifying that so many voices are being raised in that person’s defence and against Gawker’s actions.

Still, these sorts of situations can test our understanding of freedom of speech, and perhaps also challenge our commitment to it. We might wonder what redress someone should have when treated in this way. Perhaps he will be able to sue for defamation, but this is difficult in the US, and I expect it will be impossible if the allegations are, indeed, true. Should he be able to obtain redress in the courts? Mightn’t freedom of speech argue against that?

My view is that in an extreme case such as this, where there has been such a deliberate and potentially devastating intrusion on an identifiable individual’s privacy - and from an author with such a large platform - some legal redress should be available. Indeed, it should be available whether the allegations are true or not.

That view may surprise some people who know me as a free speech advocate, but allow me to explain.

Free speech - what’s it all about?

Reflection on such cases can sharpen our conceptions of what free speech is about: of what it is actually for. Speaking for myself, and not for other free speech advocates, I defend a conception rather different from those I often see from political libertarians. I am less fixated on the power of governments; I am less absolutist in opposing restrictions; but at the same time, I worry about a wider range of threats. I worry not only about state power but also threats from private power and popular opinion. Above all, I am concerned to protect the free exchange of opinions and ideas, whether the free exchange is impeded by state power or by power of other kinds.

This can lead to a more subtle and difficult analysis than the simple attitude of: “Government censorship bad; everything else okay.”

Governments can, of course, restrict the exchange of opinions and ideas, and they frequently strive to do so. They wield frightening powers, including the power to imprison and sometimes even the power to kill, and this should make us especially vigilant about their actions. Liberal-minded people - people thinking and working within the great traditions of liberal political theory - will thus be concerned about government censorship of opinions, and more generally about the use of government power to stifle discussion and debate (somewhat related to this, we are also concerned about government attempts to control literature and the arts).

With all that duly acknowledged, much speech contains little in the way of opinions or ideas (and displays little artistic merit of any kind). Even in those cases, I lean strongly against government interference. General considerations relating to individual liberty remain important, especially considerations relating to the value of expressing our thoughts and personalities without fear. Thus, I defend a broad scope for freedom of speech, even of speech that possesses little discernible value except to someone who is letting off emotional steam.

But I have never been an absolutist about repealing all laws restricting, for example, defamation, hate speech, and commercial pornography. In all these cases, I am willing to look at proposals on their merits, though I generally want less - rather than more - government restriction. I don’t rule out all possible restrictions: there can be categories of speech that are patently harmful and vanishingly unlikely to have countervailing value of some kind.

John Stuart Mill and On Liberty

In the case of speech that defames individuals, I support tight limits on what sorts of speech can justify damages awards from the courts. There is no contradiction in adding that there is actually an arguable case for defamation law to be more accessible in the narrow range of cases where it should apply.

When we’re dealing with such issues, it can be helpful to wonder what John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty (1859), might have thought. On Liberty is not an infallible holy text, or anything at all analogous, but Mill pondered such issues deeply, and his body of work contains much wisdom that remains useful.

Mill was concerned with what he called a “liberty of thought and discussion” about topics of general interest. He supported a strong freedom to hold and share opinions on those topics, without suppression by the government or the less formal tyranny of popular opinion and feeling. He did not require that the participants in social discussion maintain an unnatural standard of politeness and detachment, but nor did he support the publication of damaging lies about other individuals, or even of damaging truths about them that invaded their privacy. The Millian argument for freedom of speech does not go so far - though, in another dimension, it goes further than a concern with state censorship.

Accordingly, Mill would have opposed censorship of ideas by the government; importantly, he would also have opposed social actions, such as organised boycotts, of people merely for their opinions on general topics. He would not, however, have required that we put up with all attacks on individual citizens' reputations and private lives. For example, Mill’s name cannot be invoked to oppose a law against “revenge porn”.

Revenge porn has nothing to do with opinions on topics of general interest, but everything to do with maliciously attempting to harm a disliked individual. I doubt strongly that Mill would oppose laws against it if he were alive today. Revenge porn is not part of liberty of thought and discussion.

How to think about gutter journalism

In the case of gutter journalism, such as Gawker’s post on the unfortunate Condé Nast executive, I see nothing in Mill’s conception of liberty of thought and discussion that could be used in its defence. Nor does gutter journalism of this kind merit defence for any artistic or literary merit, for any complexity that is worth prizing, or for any other serious kind of value that it might be imagined to have.

The harm that can be caused by such writing is not remote, indirect, or speculative. This is exactly the sort of publication that can obviously ruin an identifiable person’s life (and the lives of family and loved ones). Free speech advocates need not, and should not, defend gutter journalism.

It may be difficult to frame appropriate laws. In principle, however, even free speech advocates can support narrow laws to protect individuals from the worst attacks (they can do so even while working to reduce unwarranted kinds of censorship).

Though this is not a case of revenge porn, my free speech advocacy does not prevent me from - for example - supporting narrowly and clearly drafted revenge porn laws. Nor should it prevent me from supporting laws against other extreme kinds of personal smearing or violation of individual privacy.

Conclusion

Beyond legal solutions, with their undoubted problems of interpretation, accessibility, and enforcement, and their frequent unforeseen consequences, we can do more. In particular, we can work to marginalise individuals and organisations that engage in the most serious kinds of defamation, public shaming of individuals, and invasion of people’s private lives.

Even if there’s seldom legal redress against Gawker and others of a similar ilk, we can agree to regard them, and to speak of them freely, as the callous and anti-social institutions that they are.


Edit (18 July 2015): An outcry - of which this post was a small, and surely insignificant, part - has led Gawker to remove the offending post from its site. That’s a welcome acknowledgment of acting badly. However, it’s too late to help the individual concerned. Further, the problem extends well beyond one post and well beyond Gawker. Further edit (29 May 2016): In republishing this, I am removing the (now dead) link to Gawker's original article.

X-Men: Apocalypse - review (no spoilers)

First, as per the title of this post, there are no significant spoilers in the review that follows. Still, don't read on if you want a totally unspoiled experience of X-Men: Apocalypse, as it's difficult to say anything meaningful without giving away, or hinting at, at least something.

That was your last chance.

Second, with that much said, I loved this movie.

I can't recall when I last walked out of a cinema feeling quite so joyful and exhilarated. Despite the dark aspects throughout (relieved by some fun and humour), and despite the large-scale destruction portrayed in many scenes, X-Men: Apocalypse delivers in a way that will leave fans of its characters ecstatic. In my post yesterday, I linked to a YouTube review by Grace Randolph in which she spoke of the many scenes that will excite fans, all of which are earned by what precedes them and sets them up. She's exactly right. The ways in which the pay-offs are earned may be more obvious to X-Men fans than to some of the mainstream reviewers, but it's clear that Brian Singer and others involved in making X-Men: Apocalypse understand the previous films, and their source material, intimately. It's all cashed out as well as you could possibly hope. There's much fan service here, in the sense that there's much to get us cheering for the impressive showings given to beloved characters - but it's never an unearned style of fan service.

Some of the reviews from mainstream film critics have grumbled about using a villain such as En Sabah Nur, or "Apocalypse", who is a straightforward existential threat with no redeeming moral features. And yet, even he is portrayed - by Oscar Isaac - with considerable subtlety and theatrical chutzpah. There's also just a lot of plain old-fashioned comic-book fun in having such a powerful, almost invincible, utterly irredeemable villain for the good guys to punch at - generally with little effect even though they don't hold back. It's not as if the movie is short of more sympathetic villainous characters, including Magneto (likewise played with authority by Michael Fassbender) and (with a bit less motivation for their actions) the newcomers to the franchise's current sort-of-prequel trilogy: Storm, Archangel, and Psylocke. But there's actually something refreshing about having the totally destructive and megalomaniacal Apocalypse as the main threat.

While I don't want to reveal events (or even the themes), I can say that the standard of the acting is very high. James McAvoy is superb as Professor X, with a broad emotional repertoire. Michael Fassbender portrays Magneto as an agonised malcontent warrior gifted with enormous power (for those who care about such things - and don't we all if we're X-Men fans? - Magneto's power feats in this movie exceed anything that we'd previously seen from him). Fans of Storm will be relieved to hear that her portrayal by Alexandra Shipp is incomparably better - more dramatic, more persuasive - than Halle Berry's wooden performances. This has promise for the future, as Storm has never really thrived as a character in the X-Men movies. Sophie Turner is more than creditable as a young Jean Grey, much as I find it hard to look at her without seeing Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine has a rampaging, totally fitting, cameo, while Evan Peters, as Quicksilver, steals the show in some spectacular scenes (one in particular).
I could go on, but the bottom line is that anyone who cares about these characters - or about any of them - will leave the movie happy about their portrayals.

That's something of a pleasant change, I should say, since a weakness of this franchise has been iconic characters who've not been well served by the scripts and by the actors portraying them. Storm is one obvious example; Emma Frost is another. In that regard, X-Men: Apocalypse has no obvious weaknesses unless you want to complain that the younger students at Xavier's school (Jubilee and others) don't get individual development.

If there is a real weakness in the movie from the viewpoint of X-Men fans, it's a certain amount of predictability to the plot, and of course some scenes have already been given away by the studio's promotion machinery (such as the killing of Magneto's wife and daughter, early in the movie, and Erik's subsequent renewed rage against humanity; but even this well-advertised part of the story is handled with originality, surprises, unexpected strength).

Some events may seem confusing or contrived to mainstream reviewers or, more generally, to filmgoers who are not immersed in X-Men lore. Overall, though, here's the score on X-Men: Apocalypse. This is a superb, emotionally satisfying ending to the film trilogy that began with X-Men: First Class. For my money X-Men: Apocalypse is the best X-Men movie to date and a candidate for best of all in the wave of contemporary superhero movies that began with the original X-Men movie 16 years ago. At this point, some professional reviewers don't seem to "get" it - but do not, under any circumstances, let that put you off!

Grace Randolph raves about X-Men: Apocalypse

I'm hanging out to see X-Men: Apocalypse in the next couple of days. The reviews seem to be very mixed so far - some people love the movie, while quite a few critics are knocking it. I'll soon find out for myself, but this infectious (and pretty much spoiler-free) review by Grace Randolph has me revved up. As you'll see if you click on the link, Randolph raves about X-Men Apocalypse, thinking it's the best X-Men movie yet and the best of the comic-book blockbusters so far this year - almost perfect, she thinks, for what it is. I like it when she says that there are many moments that fans will love, but that are all properly earned.


We'll see. I'm getting the impression that some critics are giving X-Men: Apocalypse unfair flak: that they wanted it to be a different sort of movie (maybe something more like Captain America: Civil War, which was certainly impressive in its way), and were not prepared to enjoy it on its own terms. But maybe I'll agree with them when I see it. Stay tuned...

Currently reading: Immortal Engines, ed.Slusser, Westfahl, and Rabkin

I've started reading Immortal Engines: Life Extension and Immortality in Science Fiction and Fantasy, ed. George Slusser, Gary Westfahl, and Eric S. Rabkin (Athens, GA, and London,1996). I'm interested to see what take the various contributors will have on how science fiction (in particular) typically regards immortality and radical extension.

My impression is that SF tends to be quite hostile to these ideas, though we can always be biased in obtaining such impressions (either by perceiving more widespread agreement with our own views than actually exists or by becoming hyper-alert to any disagreement with our views). The papers collected in Immortal Engines are from one of the highly respected Eaton conferences, so they can be expected to be of good quality - though themed conferences can, of course, lead to the publication of a lot of papers that are only tenuously on topic.

I'll plunge on, and I'll doubtless report more.

"Freedom of Thought: The Media and Propaganda" - at Academia.edu

"Freedom of Thought: The Media and Propaganda" was my first published piece with New Philosopher - appearing in issue #1 (almost three years ago now). I've now uploaded a copy on Academia.edu for anyone who might be interested and would not otherwise have access.

Like other New Philosopher articles, it is quite brief (in fact, most are even briefer than this) - at 1500 words. But it's long enough, I think, to make its point. It also gives a sample of the level of writing that you'll find in New Philosopher - a semi-popular magazine that you might be interested to read more generally.