Philosophy by the river

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: What would you risk for your moral commitments?

This week's topic has been written by Duncan.

The topic was prompted by reading about the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). During World War I, Russell engaged in various pacifist activities and was convicted under the Defence of the Realm Act 1914. He was sacked from his position at Trinity College and later imprisoned for six months for publicly lecturing against inviting the United States to enter the war.

His conviction in 1916 resulted in Russell being fined £100 (equivalent to £7,100 in 2023), which he refused to pay in the hope that he would be sent to prison, but his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police".

Of course, Russell is only one amongst many men and women across history who have risked their lives, freedom, reputations or livelihoods for a matter of moral principle. A list might include people such as: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and Alexei Navalny. Many more unknown individuals have faced similar risks in countries under authoritative regimes such as in Russia, China and now, Iran.

What drives a person to face these risks ? What gives them sufficient moral courage ? And should we all be making similar personal sacrifices ?

Can philosophy guide us in this choice ? Normative ethical systems say what people ought to do or which behaviour is morally right. But depending upon in which system you support, you may be guided in different directions.

Deontology is a rules- or duty-based ethical theory, which focuses on the goodness of the act and the motives of the actor, rather than the outcome. Whether you should act out of principle in defiance of the risks is a matter of rational intent and recognition of a moral obligation. It might also introduce the concept of supererogation: that certain acts are good but not necessarily mandatory.

Consequentialism, on the other hand, judges the rightness or wrongness of act on its outcome. It is based on a utilitarian view that we should always act to maximise goodness and minimise pain, for the greatest number of people. That may guide us to risk one life to save many more. It is however open to the demandingness objection: it appears to require more than common-sense morality would, and simply asks too much of us.

Virtue ethics looks at ethical life in terms of character traits. It cautions us to act wisely, and not to extremes. Traits that might specifically apply here are wisdom and courage. Is it either wise or courageous to risk one's life or livelihood in pursuit of a moral or political aim ? Might a more cautious and considered approach achieve the same result ?

We should also note that sometimes the individual places others at risk in addition to him- or herself, e.g. their family and friends. This seems to pose an additional challenge in choosing whether to act or not.

What is it that drives someone to choose a specific issue or problem rather than something else of arguably equal importance ?

What would you do ? Do you have an issue that is very important to you ? How did you come to choose it specifically ? And what would you risk to make the changes you desire ?

You may yourself have participated in a political or social movement, perhaps going on a demonstration or march where you were one amongst thousands of others. Is that enough ?

There is no moral obligation to attend this event but do we hope you will find the moral courage to join us on Sunday.

THE VENUE: Starbucks

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.

We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: What would you risk for your moral commitments?

This week's topic has been written by Duncan.

The topic was prompted by reading about the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). During World War I, Russell engaged in various pacifist activities and was convicted under the Defence of the Realm Act 1914. He was sacked from his position at Trinity College and later imprisoned for six months for publicly lecturing against inviting the United States to enter the war.

His conviction in 1916 resulted in Russell being fined £100 (equivalent to £7,100 in 2023), which he refused to pay in the hope that he would be sent to prison, but his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police".

Of course, Russell is only one amongst many men and women across history who have risked their lives, freedom, reputations or livelihoods for a matter of moral principle. A list might include people such as: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and Alexei Navalny. Many more unknown individuals have faced similar risks in countries under authoritative regimes such as in Russia, China and now, Iran.

What drives a person to face these risks ? What gives them sufficient moral courage ? And should we all be making similar personal sacrifices ?

Can philosophy guide us in this choice ? Normative ethical systems say what people ought to do or which behaviour is morally right. But depending upon in which system you support, you may be guided in different directions.

Deontology is a rules- or duty-based ethical theory, which focuses on the goodness of the act and the motives of the actor, rather than the outcome. Whether you should act out of principle in defiance of the risks is a matter of rational intent and recognition of a moral obligation. It might also introduce the concept of supererogation: that certain acts are good but not necessarily mandatory.

Consequentialism, on the other hand, judges the rightness or wrongness of act on its outcome. It is based on a utilitarian view that we should always act to maximise goodness and minimise pain, for the greatest number of people. That may guide us to risk one life to save many more. It is however open to the demandingness objection: it appears to require more than common-sense morality would, and simply asks too much of us.

Virtue ethics looks at ethical life in terms of character traits. It cautions us to act wisely, and not to extremes. Traits that might specifically apply here are wisdom and courage. Is it either wise or courageous to risk one's life or livelihood in pursuit of a moral or political aim ? Might a more cautious and considered approach achieve the same result ?

We should also note that sometimes the individual places others at risk in addition to him- or herself, e.g. their family and friends. This seems to pose an additional challenge in choosing whether to act or not.

What is it that drives someone to choose a specific issue or problem rather than something else of arguably equal importance ?

What would you do ? Do you have an issue that is very important to you ? How did you come to choose it specifically ? And what would you risk to make the changes you desire ?

You may yourself have participated in a political or social movement, perhaps going on a demonstration or march where you were one amongst thousands of others. Is that enough ?

There is no moral obligation to attend this event but do we hope you will find the moral courage to join us on Sunday.