Justin Smith-Ruiu has an article with the grandiose title Neo-Utilitarians Are Utter Philistines. I’m one of the neo-utilitarians who he mentions by name, alleged to be an “utter philistine,” because of my critical writings about history of philosophy and my support for utilitarianism. It’s hard not to like Justin—the article is entertainingly written, the writing is excellent, and his slightly cantankerous persona is quite amusing. That said, it’s one of those articles that’s shared uncritically by people who already agree with it because of the polemical writing, but has nothing approaching an argument.
Smith-Ruiu rattles off a whole host of claims made by the despised neo-utilitarians that he finds objectionable, yet rarely explains why they’re wrong or objectionable. It’s the classic journalistic tactic: point and sputter, albeit more eloquently than is typical of journalists. It’s unclear what the neo-utilitarians are supposed to have in common beyond being utilitarians who irk Smith Ruiu and not giving much reverence to the ancients. For instance, Smith-Ruiu, after listing a series of claims made by imaginary people about the low quality of novels and old movies, claims:
SBF himself made the ultimate contribution to this rich new genre when he observed that Shakespeare is unlikely to be as “good” as everyone says he is, since there were so few people in the 16th century and it is therefore highly improbable that that century, rather than, say, this one, should have hosted history’s greatest English stylist.
Where does this argument go wrong? Smith-Ruiu doesn’t tell us (for a defense of the argument, see here). He just sneers at the people who believe it and calls them Philistines. And this is the pattern throughout the entire article. Take the next major claim in the article, for instance:
Until recently, as is well known by now, SBF had his own retinue of philosopher-courtiers from the “effective altruist” community. Finance capitalists, it turns out, absolutely love to hear articulate people explain to them new and theoretically sound ways to convert their wealth, after the manner of the potlatch, into even more status or an even clearer conscience.
What? Rich people love people…telling them to give almost all of their money away. Seriously? Effective altruists don’t advise that people spend their money on fancy things but to give it away to sick and starving children. To the extent that rich people want to give away their wealth to save lives, that is in fact good, even if they happen to have cynical motivations (a claim with Smith-Ruiu adduces no evidence for). Or take his next claim that demonstrates that he’s annoyed by the “neo-utilitarians” but not that we’re wrong:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Bentham's Newsletter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.