Morality

[close] If I’m not mistaken, one of the issues surrounding the GR take-down was whether a reviewer could ignore the content of a book and leave one-star and negative feedback because of who the author was or what he had done. Specifically, the issue revolved around the book “The Secret of Castle Cant: Being an Account of the Remarkable Adventures of Lucy Wickwright, Maidservant and Spy” by KP Bath. Apparently it’s a YA book and Mr. Bath is a convicted pedophile. My wife and I happened to be having our usual interesting discussion about books and this incident came up. During the discussions I was reminded of Paul Johnson’s book, “Intellectuals.” (http://www.librarything.com/work/23357/details/102495625) In this work, Johnson takes noted “intellectuals” to task for have a personal morality not up to conventional standards (he doesn’t like progressives.) A noted example is Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. Apparently, Mr. Carroll was somewhat of a pedophile. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087447/Was-Lewis-Carroll-paedophile-Discovery-cryptic-letter-raises-questions-authors-relationship-real-life-Alice.html) And then there is the case of Michael Dorris, renowned author who committed suicide following a bitterly contest divorce and allegations of child abuse by his ex-wife, Louise Erdrich, and two daughters. Or how about Anne Perry, author of two very successful mystery series. She was convicted of participating in the murder of a friend’s mother in her youth for which she served time. So what are we to make of a book whose author might have perpetrated or been accused of rather heinous crimes? Do we judge the book on its merits? Do we ignore the personal morality of the author? Should Alice in Wonderland be demerited because of Carroll’s behavior? Tchaikovsky not listened to because he was a homosexual? Or “A Yellow Raft in Blue Water” ostracized? Then again, how about Mein Kampf? Does GR have a point?

[close] Study and discussion of the important questions of ethical and political philosophy from Confucius and Socrates to the present. Rules (see also the Rules and Housekeeping topic): Subject to copyright law and these rules, posters may cite, link, or quote any publication, including their own. Posts linking to outside sources must contain a brief explanation of the nature of the linked material and, unless obvious, how it is relevant to the topic being discussed. All posts and linked material must be in English. Posts and any linked material should be polite and not degenerate into ad hominem attacks. The purpose here is to seek light, not heat—rational discourse, not shouting matches. Leave your cable news persona at home and put on your philosopher's mantle when entering this group. Rational argumentation and Socratic questioning are welcome. Hectoring, intimidation, insult, and presumptuous condescension toward other group members are cause for immediate removal from the group. Internet "trolls," advocates of violence, and posters failing to comply with these rules will be removed from membership, as will posters who persist in raising issues that are outside the scope of the subject matter of this group. New members may introduce themselves in the New Member Introductions topic. See posts 4-5 here regarding the creation of new topics. Photo credit: Socrates sculpture at Louvre (CherryX per Wikimedia Commons [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

[close] The next four years are going to be rough, but we decided it was time to double down, educate ourselves and become informed citizens of the world. This is where it happens.

[close] This page is a philosophy forum. Begin a discussion by titling your comment's topic. Enter a discussion in response to a comment's topic.