JB Talks – Culture | current affairs | philosophy

There are few things more annoying than being confronted with the moral implications of one’s actions. From the 15th century village hag facing immolation for practicing witchcraft, to the last desperate moments inside the Fuhrerbunker with allied forces rapidly closing in, to meet the judgmental gaze of an outraged moral majority is often a difficult and tedious task. Indeed, it has the distinct possibility of bringing the unpleasant reality of one’s own moral character, and perhaps the failings therein, into uncomfortable clarity. This is acutely applicable in the latter example, wherein one hopes that a final moment of critical self-reflection preceded Adolf’s exit from this life via route P-38. However, the presence of such an apparently aggrieved majority baying for the blood of the unjust is hardly satisfactory evidence that one possesses any such failings beyond, perhaps, a lack of the sort of refined social skills which have historically proven the best defence against allegations of ethical aberration. Something tells me your typical victim of witch burning could not be described as a ‘people’s person’. Nevertheless, in this case justice has suffered a despicable perversion, with the point here being that we simply we cannot rely on the prevailing moral consensus to be our sole barometer when navigating the sticky realm of right and wrong. That being said, if ever there is a time for critical introspection into our own behaviour, surely it must be when prompted to do so by our peers, indeed, who’s to say that we won’t find ourselves the Hitler of the situation.  

Continue reading “Meditations on Meat – the ethics of farming and slaughter”

Read part 2 here: https://jb-talks.com/plato-or-aristotle-the-great-debate-of-western-philosophy-2/

Part 1 – Plato

The date is 300BC, the setting is ancient Greece. For the perhaps the first time the human race has paused its’ pursuit of senseless violence and blind, incoherent faith. In this single, unassuming corner of the ancient world man is intent upon a discussion of ideas. This discussion will resonate across centuries and nations, and those involved will have begun a conversation which will continue to rage as long as philosophy is deliberated.

Amongst these great pioneers of early philosophy, the two figures of Plato and Aristotle stand out as being undeniably the most influential in the realm of fundamental philosophy. These fundamentals can be broken down into, essentially, the study of how we attain knowledge itself (epistemology), and the study of the very nature of the world we live in (metaphysics). Although both individuals of course developed massively influential theories of ethics and politics, it is at this fundamental level which we see the key dichotomy develop.

So, why the focus on these individuals? Surely, I am exaggerating the influence one person can have on an entire field of human knowledge? Well, perhaps. As we are talking about figures who existed thousands of years ago, we cannot exactly pull up detailed records of all the various thinkers who contributed to the conversation, and determine whose ideas were the most significant. Indeed, Plato’s work is primarily a documentation of the work of Socrates, so it is almost certainly unfair to consider the ideas presented in his writings as wholly his own. It is likely that the ideas of these revered thinkers are, at least somewhat, a product of the prevalent thought of the time. That said, as we see in more documented periods of history, it usually takes a single thinker of considerable mental magnitude to tie these ideas together into an integrated philosophy. Nevertheless, as we have access to only that which the ancient Greeks chose to commit to parchment – thinkers such as Socrates never wrote a word – it isn’t really possible to determine the ultimate root of certain ideas and theories. This, however, rather misses the point. The difference in the views of Aristotle and Plato encapsulate two ways of approaching knowledge, of observing the world and of reason itself.

Continue reading “Plato or Aristotle – The Great Debate of Western Philosophy”

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The discipline of philosophy, in academic circles, is unanimous about very little. On the work of Ayn Rand however, an uncharacteristically united opinion is held. With no knowledge of her or her work, a cursory brush through the scholarly institutions will leave one with the impression of the woman as little more than a hypocritical novelist, and the work as, at best, simplistic drivel and at worst, poison to the very soul of man.   

In my opinion this presentation does a grave disservice to a philosophy which deserves discussion at the very highest levels of academia, and consideration in the minds of every critical thinker on earth. In this article I will provide an overview of who Ayn Rand was, and what her philosophy entails. I will not be offering a detailed defence or rebuttal in favour of her arguments here, although I will likely do so in the future. It is also necessary to provide the disclaimer that I am by no means an expert on these matters – for context I am currently studying Rand and philosophy in general. If you are looking for an in depth or academic presentation of these ideas I defer to Rand herself, whose key works I will reference here.

Continue reading “Who is Ayn Rand? What is Objectivism?”

See parts One and Two here:

• Part One – https://jb-talks.com/lockdown-article-part-1/
• Part Two – https://jb-talks.com/lockdown-article-part-2/

 

 

Finally, in our examination of the UK lockdown, we must consider the primary reason for which it was implemented. Contrary to perhaps the general perception, I do not believe that the lockdown was decided upon to reduce the death count alone.

What we heard from Boris in the early stages of the crisis seemed to suggest a lack of enthusiasm for such draconian measures, this was when a large number of deaths amounting to a particularly bad flu season was all that was on the cards. In fact, the lockdown came about mainly due to fears that the NHS would collapse under the weight of those infected, which would mean a crisis for all, rather than the relatively few critically affected by covid. Boris’s talk of ‘herd immunity’, with 60% of the population needing to contract the disease, may seem callous and barbaric to our insulated reality of monitored movement and restricted travel, however this really was the government’s initial response to the pandemic. In order to understand why, we need to realize that lockdown was never meant to prevent such a thing happening, in fact, it is still likely that similar proportion of the population will still get the virus, and that herd immunity is very much still our best bet of getting covid under control for good. This is because the virus will not simply go away; the only things which will truly eradicate such a disease are either a vaccine – which doesn’t look imminent – or a total lockdown which lasts so incredibly long that every vestige of the virus fades away. As neither of these are a tangible possibility in the coming months, covid will continue to spread and infect many of those who were previously shielded by lockdown, this will persist until some kind of herd immunity has been reached. This means that, in fact, a number of people will likely contract the virus over the next few years which may end up being somewhere close to Boris’ 60%. The lockdown – even if we assume it was effective – merely had the effect of slowing the rate at which this herd immunity is reached, spreading out the damage over a long period of time, and protecting the operational integrity of the NHS. Although the idea of the NHS collapsing is something to be taken very seriously, the evidence shows that we were never even close to that being a reality, with massive new hospitals containing thousands of beds, constructed rapidly and at great expense, standing either near empty or entirely unused at the height of the pandemic. The argument would of course be that the lockdown prevented the crisis reaching these critical levels, however, in light of the evidence from other countries, it is likely that a better prepared and funded healthcare system, along with more rational travel restrictions, would have more than compensated for what relief the lockdown provided.

 

Continue reading “Lockdown UK: Was It Justified? Part 3 – Impact and Precedent”

Here we attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the UK lockdown, and lockdowns in general, by comparing the data from different countries and looking at the various factors involved.

Despite the clear damage the lockdown has caused and will continue to cause, it is of course not enough to merely point this out, as our government did not choose to implement the lockdown in ignorance of these facts. The question is whether what we are seeing are acceptable losses, in the face of an otherwise existential crisis. Did the lockdown really save us all from certain doom?

A somewhat controversial recent study coming from JPMorgan suggests not, concluding that lockdowns have little effect on the infection rate within countries. Such a conclusion is justifiably hard to swallow, based not only on the immense sacrifices made in the last few months – and the shared belief that those sacrifices were warranted – but also on how counter-intuitive the claim seems. How could a virus, which travels exclusively through close human contact, be unaffected by the amount of close human contact in a society? The study bases this mainly on an examination of infection statistics in countries which have begun to lift their lockdowns, finding that the rate of infection is consistently either the same or lower both during lockdown and after restrictions have been lifted. If the lockdowns were effective, the study reasons, we would expect a spike of infections after the restrictions end. This is not what we are seeing. While this study is in no way definitive, and its conclusion seems like somewhat of a stretch given the evidence – especially the suggestion that the lockdowns have actually increased the infection rate – it does raise a valid question, and provide some basis for doubting whether our response to the virus has been effective.

Continue reading “Lockdown UK: Was It Justified? Part 2 – Countries and Comparison”

This truly has been a year of unprecedented turmoil, and by God we’re only just halfway through. While only a cruel stroke of fate can be blamed for the tragic deaths inflicted by the worldwide pandemic, the catastrophe which may prove costliest in the long run is one which was an entirely man made creation. For the first time since the Second World War the UK government implemented population wide restrictions on free movement and business, an act which flies in the face of the civil liberties our country built itself upon. Such draconian measures should arguably be beyond the scope of a principled government entirely, however in times of desperate need, where a great proportion of the civilian population have their rights put under tangible threat, the state can be justified in overstepping their bounds. The question then becomes, as we begin turning to look at the coronavirus outbreak with hindsight, was this one such occasion? Was the lockdown justified?

Continue reading “Lockdown UK: was it justified? Part 1 – Economics”