Moral Philosophy and Living

Should a moral philosopher live his or her ideas?

The word "should" is troublesome: it invites faith arguments on what life demands.

Perhaps the easiest argument is that because someone's ideas may benefit humanity outside of their personal application, then they have value. If their unlived ideas have values, then it is fine to not live his or her ideas.

A more important question is, "What do your ideas require?"

I must ask in response, "If you don't live your ideas, then are they real?"

If I speak of love but never offer witness, was that real love?

If I speak of activism but I never engage with society, am I an activist?

Most would say, "No."

What allows us to confidently reject those examples? In both cases, the lack of action is the constitution of illusion.

Ideas wait for incarnation through action. Until acted upon, they are not real.

This is a terrifying idea for philosophers. They will do everything to avoid association with their thoughts, hedging any substantial claim. They wish to be an observer of thought, not a thinker.

It seems that distance is mistaken as virtue.

We must ask them, "What exactly are you afraid of?"

There are many schools of thought without fear of embodiment, like Objectivism. One who takes objectivism to its logical conclusions is likely to degrade others for his or her own benefit. I have written extensively about the requirements of human relations, but essentially to knowingly harm another is to desecrate sacred paradox. It is a mixture of hubris, parasitism, and greed.

As awful as this school of thought is, at least the ideas are visceral and real. They have been summoned into this world through action - they have substance. This does not diminish the pain, but it undoubtedly is real.

People who live Objectivism should not be excused for their corrosive actions. I would prefer a world where it does not exist, or one where their ideas were not brought to life. They had the audacity to incarnate it.

The greatest danger are schools of philosophy that are enacted to enable systemic harm - think Nietzsche's ideas being appropriated by Nazi Germany. Much of his work was contorted (by his relative) to support facism. These ideas, and many modern neoliberal ideas, enable dehumanization of our fellow humans to consecrate power.

Likewise, consider someone like Martin Luther King: he lived his philosophy, and it served as the foundation for equal civil rights for black Americans. It was manifested, and it served as scaffolding of immense power.

To make philosophical claims but refuse to live them is the highest cowardice. Around us lives pure evil, individuals salivating at the thought of summoning philosophy that excuse their heinous actions. One's thoughts have immense latent power.

To ignore the latent power of thought while evil patiently waits around the corner is disgraceful. If you are not willing to live your thoughts, then you are abandoning the reality of human relations.

The disembodied good is no match for embodied harm.

Although I write from anger, I must hold deep compassion for cowardly philosophers. The academy absolutely punishes intellectual ownership. You will be told that you are "not rigorous" enough, and it is likely your career will be stunted (the question if philosophy should even be a career is another topic). Most write within that tradition, that system, so we must hold compassion with equal parts anger.