Drafts by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
Public Philosophy Journal, 2021
We live in the age of apology, particularly the age of collective apology. Here, I focus specific... more We live in the age of apology, particularly the age of collective apology. Here, I focus specifically on collective state apologies. In these apologies, political leaders apologize on behalf of an entire collective to another collective, often a racial or ethnic minority. Cynicism and skepticism arise as to whether these apologies are morally legitimate. Here, moral legitimacy means that an apology deserves to be given the authority, seriousness, and consideration that interpersonal apologies usually demand. In this article, I respond to two groups that doubt the moral legitimacy of such apologies,
namely political-realists and moral-individualists. Ultimately, I argue that collective state apologies can be morally legitimate. Political-realists are wrong to think that sincerity is necessary or sufficient for moral legitimacy. Moral-individualists over moralize the role of the individual to the point of “hyperindividualism.” I end by proposing that at least democratically elected leaders have standing to apologize on behalf of their constituents.
Many historically-influential philosophers had profoundly wrong moral views or behaved very badl... more Many historically-influential philosophers had profoundly wrong moral views or behaved very badly. They philosophers are famous for their intellectual accomplishments, yet they display serious moral or intellectual flaws in their beliefs or actions. At least, some of their views were false, ultimately unjustified and, perhaps, harmful.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past?
The question of how we should engage with a philosopher’s racial thought is of particular importa... more The question of how we should engage with a philosopher’s racial thought is of particular importance when considering Kant, who can be viewed as particularly representative of Enlightenment philosophy. In this article I argue that we should take a stance of deep acknowledgment when considering Kant’s work both inside and outside the classroom. Taking a stance of deep acknowledgment should be understood as 1) taking Kant’s racial thought to be reflective of his moral character, 2) Kant being accountable for his racial thought and 3) being willing to consider the possibility that Kant’s racial thought is consistent with and inextricable from his moral philosophy. Alternative forms of engaging with Kant’s racial work have either moral or pedagogical failings, which range from simply teaching the history of philosophy uncritically to outright deception. A stance of deep acknowledgement will allow philosophers to understand how Kant’s racial thought interacts with his moral philosophy and allow instructors to teach philosophy in a historically contextualized approach so as to not alienate students whose demographic was disparaged by Kant.
Articles, Chapters & Other Writings by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, 2018
Many historically-influential philosophers had profoundly wrong moral views or behaved very badly... more Many historically-influential philosophers had profoundly wrong moral views or behaved very badly. Aristotle thought women were “deformed men” and that some people were slaves “by nature.” Descartes had disturbing views about non-human animals. Hume and Kant were racists. Hegel disparaged Africans. Nietzsche despised sick people. Mill condoned colonialism. Fanon was homophobic. Frege was anti-Semitic; Heidegger was a Nazi. Schopenhauer was sexist. Rousseau abandoned his children. Wittgenstein beat his young students. Unfortunately, these examples are just a start.
These philosophers are famous for their intellectual accomplishments, yet they display serious moral or intellectual flaws in their beliefs or actions. At least, some of their views were false, ultimately unjustified and, perhaps, harmful.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past? Here we explore the issues, asking questions and offering few answers. Any insights gained here might be applicable to contemporary imperfect philosophers, scholars in other fields, and people in general.
Papers by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
In this piece, I focus on collective state apologies. In these apologies, political leaders apolo... more In this piece, I focus on collective state apologies. In these apologies, political leaders apologize on behalf of an entire collective to another collective, often a racial or ethnic minority. I argue that these apologies can be morally legitimate, meaning that they deserve to be given the authority, seriousness, and consideration that interpersonal apologies usually demand. I refer to those who doubt the moral legitimacy of collective state apologies as either moral-cynics or moral-skeptics. I begin in section II by delineating a taxonomy of apologies. I highlight not only how morally legitimate apologies are different from genuine and successful apologies, but also how collective state apologies are different from collective, political, and public apologies. Afterward, in section III, I focus on three collective state apologies in the Americas. In section IV I consider how the moral-cynic would argue that collective state apologies can not be sincere and therefore cannot be morally legitimate. I also consider one particular way the moral-skeptic would argue collective state apologies cannot be morally legitimate, namely by claiming that no one has standing to apologize on behalf of others. In section V, I respond to both the moral-cynic and moral-skeptic. My replies argue that sincerity is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral legitimacy, that “hyperindividualism” should be rejected, and propose that at least democratically elected leaders have standing to apologize on behalf of their constituents.
In The Politics, Aristotle tells us plainly, “the relation of male to female is naturally that of... more In The Politics, Aristotle tells us plainly, “the relation of male to female is naturally that of the superior to the inferior, of the ruling to the ruled. This general principle must similarly hold good of all human beings generally” (1254b14). In Aristotle, The Politics, R.F. Stalley (ed.). Ernest Barker (trans.), Oxford University Press, 1998. Cynthia Freeland discusses Aristotle’s misogyny in detail, “Aristotle says that the courage of a man lies in commanding, a woman’s lies in obeying; that ‘matter yearns for form, as the female for the male and the ugly for the beautiful’; that women have fewer teeth than men; that a female is an incomplete male or ‘as it were, a deformity.’” In “Nourishing Speculation: A Feminist Reading of Aristotelian Science,” in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), State University of New York Press, 1994.
Teaching Philosophy, 2018
The question of how we should engage with a philosopher’s racial thought is of particular importa... more The question of how we should engage with a philosopher’s racial thought is of particular importance when considering Kant, who can be viewed as particularly representative of Enlightenment philosophy. In this article I argue that we should take a stance of deep acknowledgment when considering Kant’s work both inside and outside the classroom. Taking a stance of deep acknowledgment should be understood as 1) taking Kant’s racial thought to be reflective of his moral character, 2) Kant being accountable for his racial thought and 3) being willing to consider the possibility that Kant’s racial thought is consistent with and inextricable from his moral philosophy. Alternative forms of engaging with Kant’s racial work have either moral or pedagogical failings, which range from simply teaching the history of philosophy uncritically to outright deception. A stance of deep acknowledgement will allow philosophers to understand how Kant’s racial thought interacts with his moral philosophy an...
Uploads
Drafts by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
namely political-realists and moral-individualists. Ultimately, I argue that collective state apologies can be morally legitimate. Political-realists are wrong to think that sincerity is necessary or sufficient for moral legitimacy. Moral-individualists over moralize the role of the individual to the point of “hyperindividualism.” I end by proposing that at least democratically elected leaders have standing to apologize on behalf of their constituents.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past?
Articles, Chapters & Other Writings by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
These philosophers are famous for their intellectual accomplishments, yet they display serious moral or intellectual flaws in their beliefs or actions. At least, some of their views were false, ultimately unjustified and, perhaps, harmful.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past? Here we explore the issues, asking questions and offering few answers. Any insights gained here might be applicable to contemporary imperfect philosophers, scholars in other fields, and people in general.
Papers by Victor F Abundez-Guerra
namely political-realists and moral-individualists. Ultimately, I argue that collective state apologies can be morally legitimate. Political-realists are wrong to think that sincerity is necessary or sufficient for moral legitimacy. Moral-individualists over moralize the role of the individual to the point of “hyperindividualism.” I end by proposing that at least democratically elected leaders have standing to apologize on behalf of their constituents.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past?
These philosophers are famous for their intellectual accomplishments, yet they display serious moral or intellectual flaws in their beliefs or actions. At least, some of their views were false, ultimately unjustified and, perhaps, harmful.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosophers from the past? Here we explore the issues, asking questions and offering few answers. Any insights gained here might be applicable to contemporary imperfect philosophers, scholars in other fields, and people in general.