Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
Unknown: If we think of morality
as offering us opportunities to
make the world better,
opportunities to help where we
can, that won't dominate our
lives in the same way, and so we
can move with a little moral
gracefulness through the world.
Rather than carrying our
morality as a burden, we can see
it more as an opportunity.
PJ Wehry: Hello and welcome to
Chasing Leviathan. I'm your host
PJ Wery, and I'm here today with
Dr. Todd May, who is the Nielsen
Professor of the Humanities at
Warren Wilson College. We're
here to talk about his book, A
Decent life, morality for the
rest of us, Doctor May, Todd,
Todd, wonderful to have you on
today.
Unknown: Hey, well, PJ, thanks
for the invitation.
PJ Wehry: So, Todd, why this
book? Why decency? A decent life
for the you know morality for
the rest of
Unknown: us. Okay, well, there's
actually a story behind this,
PJ. So, yeah, I had been working
with the University of Chicago
Press, and I'd published a
couple books with them. And
after the second book, I said,
"I don't really think I have
anything more to say here. I'm
pretty much done, I think. And
the editor asked if we could
have a phone conversation. We
never did that. We usually met
by email, and so I got her on
the phone, and she said, "Look,
Todd, she said, "I was thinking
to myself, what would be a book
that you would write that I'd
want to read? And she said, "Are
you familiar with Peter Singer's
book, The Most Good You Can do,
right now. I don't know if your
listeners know much about Peter
Singer, but but the idea is you
know that he's utilitarian
always caused the most good,
right? And so this this is a
book about people who you know
sold their kidney, what donated
their kidneys to other people,
took jobs on Wall Street, so
that people could have, so they
can make a lot of money and give
it away. And so I said, "Yeah,
no, I'm, I know Singer, and I
know his view, and I know that
book. And and so the editor
said, "Look, I like you to write
that book, right? The most you
could do for sane people, right?
That's a
PJ Wehry: great ask.
Unknown: Immediately, I knew
what you meant. Right. So the
idea was that most of us are not
going to become moral exemplars.
Right. There are reasons I talk
about them in the book why maybe
we we shouldn't all become moral
exemplars. But then the question
is, how do you frame morality?
How do you frame our moral tasks
if you're not thinking in terms
of like the best life or the
good life? And what you know,
for Aristotle, it's it's the the
telus of a life. For Kant, it's
ways in which to become like a
completely virtuous person. How
might we frame it? And PJ, what
happened was I started to frame
it differently, and so the book
offers a different frame for
thinking about our moral lives.
That's that's it's distinct from
the kinds of things you see with
traditional moral philosophy,
and I just call it decency.
Right, you can get a little bit,
people can get a little little
weird about the word decency
because you know, if you go out
for like to a really good
restaurant and they say how was
the meal and you say it was
decent, that's not a great
thing, right? So I'm thinking of
decency as like better than
mediocrity, right? Less than
being a moral exemplar.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, absolutely. I so
I'm a devout Christian. I grew
up that way, and so a lot of the
examples I think of things come
from Scripture. One of the the I
was reading Teresa Avila, the
Interior Castle, and so I
understand there's some there's
some moral implications about
the the whole story, but one of
the things that as I was
reading, and she's like this
moral exemplar of like this
incredible you know mystical
union, and she's given she's a
nun, and she's given everything
up, and she's even fighting
through like against the
Inquisition, and she's
referencing positively Elijah,
and that that her whole order
praises Elijah. Their motto is
Elijah saying, "I am zealous for
the Lord. I have been zealous
for the Lord, and but actually,
in the context, the the story. I
don't know if you're familiar
with the story. Elijah has this
big confrontation with with
these child sacrificing. Maybe
they're errors. The the prophets
of Baal, and he he wins the. Day
and then he still gets
persecuted by the king and
queen. They're trying to kill
him, and he flees into the
desert. And he's basically
really depressed. And everyone
talks about God coming to talk
to him, but the first thing
happens is God makes him fall
asleep and gives him a snack,
which I think is a great talking
about you know just like good
common sense. It's like if
you're depressed, let's start
with yeah with that. And he and
he says, "I am so zealous. I am
I am so zealous for you, God.
And no, I am the last one. No
one else is faithful. And God's
response is, "There's 7000 other
people that no one thinks or
talks about over here who are
faithful to me. It's like you
know, it's like you just had
this great like miracle and all
these things, and you're you're
talking to King Queen. There's
7000 people will never see
miracles, and they're living
good, decent lives over here.
And what's interesting is
everyone looks at Teresa Avila
as like, oh, this amazing
person, and she is. But it's
also it's like that, like
literally in the story, it's
like there's 7000 people who God
is happy with over here, just
like farming, having families,
and not. I don't. Anyways,
that's that's what I thought. Is
that a is that a kind of like
tracking a little bit with kind
of the the purpose of your book?
Unknown: Yeah, I think Paige,
but I want to be a little
careful about one aspect of it.
So yeah,
PJ Wehry: go for
Unknown: it. These 7000 people,
PJ Wehry: yes,
Unknown: they can be living
decent lives, or they can be
living exemplary lives. Except
nobody knows it, right? So also
true.
PJ Wehry: Yes.
Unknown: Right. So what I want
to press on is the first thing,
right? Right. There, these
people are trying their best.
They're making mistakes. They're
they're not famous, but they're
also not perfect. And yet, and
still, right? They're trying to
frame how to live decently in a
world that doesn't always
welcome that.
PJ Wehry: And I think, and what
I wanted to highlight, and I,
sorry, not trying to hijack
everything here. It was that
everyone tells the stories of
Elijah. They tell the story of
Teresa, you know, of Avila,
Mother Teresa, you know, Peter
Singer. It's he's like this guy
gave his kidney because that,
you know, and you're like,
that's a lot to give a kidney,
right? It's like, and I think
that, anyways, I um, uh, that
that really connected with me.
But maybe I've thrown us off a
little bit. So my apologies if
that was a little bit out of the
blue. I what are the and I think
that kind of leads into what you
hinted at in the book you give.
What are some of the reasons for
not becoming a moral exemplar?
Unknown: Well, Susan Wolf, the
philosopher from UNC, right, has
written on this, and she has
just this great article called
"Moral Saints, and she said,
"Look, if we were all moral
saints, what kinds of things
would go by the boards, right?
You know, a lot of music would
go by the boards because music
doesn't always cause the most
overall good, right? A lot of
friendships would go by the
board because they don't
necessarily cause the most
overall good. So there are lots
of aspects of our lives that
involve things that we value,
and our lives might be less
meaningful if we didn't have
access to these, or didn't
cultivate these. So we should
think of moral values and acting
morally as a really important
part of our life. But it's not
clear that we should subsume all
of our lives, or to put it
another way, subsume everything
that we value under the rubric
of is it moral or is it not? So
I think there's some good
reasons not to be moral
exemplars, but I want to be a
little bit careful here, PJ.
It's probably good to have some
moral exemplars out there. Yeah,
yeah, right. Yeah. So it's it's
not like nobody should try to be
a moral exemplar, but if
everybody tried to be a moral
exemplar, there is a lot that we
value that would go by the
boards.
PJ Wehry: I feel like there's
two distinct ways that could be
taken, and I'm curious which
one. So when you talk about the,
it would be it'd be okay to lose
those things. Like one one way
of thinking about is that it'd
be okay to lose those things if
everyone could be moral
exemplars, but it's okay that's
not. Or are we saying, or I'm
just trying to understand here,
is it more that would be bad if
we lost these things by everyone
becoming moral exemplars? Does
that make sense?
Unknown: Yeah, option B.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, yes, all right. Yeah,
which is the stronger claim,
right? Yeah, like the
Unknown: yeah, yeah. The the I
mean, and and I know what Peter
Singh is going to say to stuff
like that. He's going to say,
yeah, but is it worth it? And
actually, what he's going to
say, what he he has said, right?
Is it worth it to have things
like opera and? And and and
various music and art when at
the expense of people starving,
and I and and I think that you
know I think that's a powerful
point, right? But I also think
that we get that what happens to
our lives involves lots of
different things that might be
might contribute to our
meaningfulness, and it it seems
to me a bit much to ask us to
sacrifice all those things in
favor of a moral view that seems
very strict and very austere.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, I think that
austerity has always been the
thing that struck me about Peter
Singer's framework. Right? It's
like I don't know that I want to
live in that world, even if you
know. It's like yeah, yeah.
Unknown: And that's that's where
the notion of decency comes
from. Right? Trying to try and
provide an alternative that
allows us to keep a rich moral
life, right? Without having to
live in an austere, overly
moralized world.
PJ Wehry: And I think we've kind
of been talking about this,
anyways, without the
terminology. But in the first
chapter, you talk about the
difference between altruism and
decency. Can you tease that out
a little bit so that we have
that that kind of working
vocabulary you have in the book?
Unknown: Yeah, altruism is is
self sacrifice generally
considered self sacrifice from
moral lands, and so the idea is
that other aspects of your life
that that contribute to its
being meaningful are not that
important, right? You let them
go, and decency, by contrast, is
the attempt to be a good person
but not necessarily a moral
exemplar, right? To integrate
morality right into your life in
such a way that it that it has
an important role to play, but
not everything has to be
subsumed right to it. One of the
things I say a little bit later
that's probably worth bringing
up now is I introduce the notion
of of moral grace or moral
gracefulness, right? And if we
think of morality as something
that something that should
dominate our lives, so that
becomes such a burden. Then we
become a little bit more
alienated from our lives, right?
But if we think of morality as
offering us opportunities to
make the world better,
opportunities to help where we
can that won't dominate our
lives in the same way, and so we
can move with a little moral
gracefulness through the world,
right? Rather than carrying our
morality as a burden, we can see
it more as an opportunity. Now
there will be moral burdens in
our life. That's you know that's
just taken for granted, but we
don't want to think of all of
morality as this burden that we
have to shoulder, right? From
the time we can figure out what
morality is until the time we
die.
PJ Wehry: Yeah. Is there? And
I'm I'm trying to just make sure
I'm tracking with you here. One
is that when we talk, when you
talk about alienated, that's
connected to that austerity.
Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So I I
understand that is in some ways
it sounds like morality works
better if I'm understanding you
correctly when it's
inspirational rather than
obligation, or it's generative
rather than obligatory.
Unknown: I would say that's
often the case. I want to be a
little careful here, right?
Yeah, you know the ancient
philosopher Aristotle often said
that certain things he was
saying were true, and used the
phrase true in general and for
the most part.
PJ Wehry: Yes, I
Unknown: love that phrase,
right?
PJ Wehry: Yeah.
Unknown: So I don't want to say
that it's always the case,
right? That inspirational
morality that comes out of
inspiration is going to be
better than maladap that comes
off out of a sense of burden,
but I think in general and for
the most part, right, it will be
better.
PJ Wehry: One of the examples
you give is in Copenhagen: the
the difference in the way they
view the subway versus people in
New York. Yes, and one of the
things that occurred to me, and
I think I have some idea of how
you'd answer this. It one
there's the building up, and
maybe this is part of being
decent, is that you are
encouraging people not to all be
moral exemplars, but to be
decent and to raise kind of the
culture up where. That becomes
the norm where people look at
you weird when you do something
indecent, right? You're like,
why? Why would you do that? And
and so lifting up the whole
culture of it is there, and and
maybe this is about difficult
times and moral and the call to
being a moral exemplar just in
the the time and the place, but
when your whole culture is
problematic, like so, for
instance, I mean the classic
moral, you know, case is the
Gestapo is coming, and you have
to make a choice to either give
the Jews over or to hide them in
your house, right? In that case,
it feels like you're being
forced into a moral exemplar
situation, or do you like how
does how does decency fit into
those situations, or is that
just not? Are you talking about
more like the building up of
culture?
Unknown: Good, no, it's a really
good question, PJ. The the let
me step back and and introduce a
concept from the philosopher
Thomas Nagel, and then swing
back to the question. Right, so
Nagel's got this great essay,
"Moral Luck, and he talks about
four different kinds of moral
luck. Right, and one of the
kinds of moral luck is, I think,
is I think he uses the word
conditional. Right, it's the
conditions that you find
yourself under. So that there
may be certain conditions you
find yourself under that you are
morally required to sacrifice
more than you would be under
other conditions, and he uses
the the Nazi example, right? I
say something about that in the
book relative to the climate
crisis. So in the climate
crisis, right, we are, I
believe, called to do things
that are going to be more
inconvenient for us than they
might otherwise be. Certainly,
more inconvenient than if we
were not in a situation of a
climate crisis. So I think that
there are situations where you
have this word "conditional. We
have this conditional or
situational moral luck that we
find ourselves in a situation in
which more is required of us now
than would be required under
other conditions. I actually
think in the U.S. to bring the
example a little bit closer to
home, right? We often some
places are in a situation of
conditional moral luck, and
that's when ICE comes through
and starts arresting people,
arresting your neighbors,
throwing them in cages. That
those people have an obligation
to do something that might
actually expose them to some
kind of harm that people who are
not in that situation don't
have. So people say in
Minneapolis, they this was not
comfortable for them. It was
dangerous. Obviously, it was
dangerous. Two people were
murdered, but there was an
obligation that they had that
say I'm living in Asheville and
we haven't had a surge yet,
right? That we don't have that
obligation. But if this comes to
Asheville, right, we will have
an obligation, right, to make
ourselves more vulnerable than
we would otherwise, right? So
it's right, I think PJ, to say
that decency, right, is not
something that we can always
just claim a get out of jail
free card with, right? Yeah.
Sometimes we're just called
upon, given the conditions, to
do something more.
PJ Wehry: As an example, and I,
I believe I read this in the
biography. You did some work
with apartheid, anti-apartheid.
Yeah, yes, yeah. Sorry,
anti-apartheid. That's how. I I
hope everyone understood what I
was saying there. But that would
be like living in South Africa
during that time. That was, I
mean, clear. Sure. At that
point, battle lines are drawn,
right? Like, I mean, like
cultural, like it becomes a you
have to make a choice. You can't
you can't if sitting on the
sidelines would have been would
have been making a choice as
well. If that makes sense, would
that be fair? The
Unknown: civil rights movement
in in the South in the 1950s and
1960s. That's another example of
that. If you're white in the
South, you have obligations that
that may make you vulnerable.
That people in the North right
didn't have at that moment.
PJ Wehry: And so you you move
like, and I love this movement
here through the book. You start
out with just like, so we have
like these edge cases, and you
know that's. I apologize, you
know that's the classic
philosophy question. It's like,
well, let's talk about like the
really difficult cases. You're
like, well, kind of the book's
about like how can you be better
with the people. You know, I
love you start this way, the
people right around you, and
like, no, I don't want to do
that. That's actual like. Work,
like, can you talk a little bit
about that movement? And and I
think even at the end of the
book, you talk a little bit
about how this will give people
the chance to become moral
exemplars. Like, there's that in
between stage, but it really
starts with like we don't want
moral exemplars who aren't good
to the people around them,
right? We don't want to like
like this kind of like oh you
shoot off into the stratosphere
and actually you're a jerk. But
we because of the publicity
because sometimes acting.
Anyways, I digress. Yeah, go
ahead.
Unknown: Well, the the structure
actually came from some of my
reading of David Hume and his
view of morality. So for Hume,
morality begins in sympathy, and
the idea is to extend it out.
PJ Wehry: Yeah.
Unknown: So the structure of the
book starts with right common
decency to people who are around
you, and then it moves to to
people who are not around you.
Maybe people who are people who
are more distant in space, or
people more distant in time,
generations that aren't here
yet, right? And then it moves
out further to non-human
animals, right? Our relationship
to to them. So what I tried to
was start close, and then move
out, which which I think
parallels in a way Hume's idea
of taking our sympathetic
relationship to people who are
around us and figuring out how
to extend that out. So that's
the structure, and in doing
that, right, I start with the
idea of common decency, holding
a door for people, the people in
Copenhagen who who when the when
people are getting off the
train, they stand to the side.
They don't try to crowd in and
get a good space. I think I
talked about when your kid does
something that's really
irritating, right? Taking taking
a breath and looking at them,
actually looking at them in the
face, right? I try to do that.
By the way, also, oftentimes
when people who are who are
unhoused on the street, right,
and ask for money, right, even
when I can't give it to them, I
try to look at them, right, and
say something to them, right.
See them, see them as a fellow
human being, right? The one
example that got pushback,
although it was an example that
I saw a couple places, was
somebody sitting next to you, a
colleague with hot coffee, and
they leave the room, and you
take a napkin and put it over
their cup, so it keeps the the
coffee warm, right? I was going
to
PJ Wehry: ask you about it. So I
thought it
Unknown: was a good example.
Some people think some people
like, oh, that's gross, right?
So I, you know, I'm not going to
die on that particular hill, but
I think it's a, I think it's an
interesting example.
PJ Wehry: I maybe it's because
there's no culture. I've never
seen someone do that before, and
so messing with someone else's
food without asking, I could
see. I don't. I understand the
thought, and it's not. It's not
gross. There's nothing wrong
with it. It's just. I think
people are like, if I came back
and I was like, whom has my
coffee? Right. Yeah. That's
really. Here's the other thing,
PJ. Is like we're all we're all
working with to go cups with the
plastic thing on top, so no, you
can't even do it anyway. Well,
but if we're if we're listening
to the climate crisis properly,
then we should be. Right, right.
Fair
Unknown: enough.
PJ Wehry: No, that's that kind
of derailed me a little bit.
That was funny. I love one
thing. This connects with my
previous guest. It'll be the
episode right before this one. I
actually had on to talk about
the ethics of dog ownership, and
still on the one hand, I love
that you know that kind of
extends out. Dog ownership is
interesting because the
non-human animal side-it's like
actually they're very close to
us. But the the other thing
that's interesting is what she
put it. Kind of the foundation
of it is at the the and I think
this this is very congenial to
your project. To be curious is
the foundation of of ethics, and
so that idea of stopping and
actually paying attention, like
when your dog is barking, not
just being like "stop that, but
like "Okay, why is the dog
barking? Very similar. I I have
five kids and we homeschool, so
when you talk about that breath,
I've heard that I needed the
reminder, so thank you. But
that, how does does being
curious is? I think in some ways
that kind of sounds similar to
sympathy. Is that is that a
useful addition, or do you have
a pushback on that?
Unknown: No, no, no. Let me step
back to to talk about an early
frame, and then come back.
Forward to to curiosity. Sure, I
think it's related, right? So
PJ Wehry: yeah, at
Unknown: the end of the book,
you know, I what I say that
people decent. The fundamental
decency is recognizing that
there are others out there who
have lives to live, right? That
they they need shelter, they
need food, they don't they don't
want to feel isolated. They want
to feel that their lives mean
something to someone. That and
that what we need to to do is
recognize that, right? And that
that that our that moral decency
emerges first and foremost from
that recognition, right? But if
we start there, right, then you
can see that that's going to
lead toward curiosity, right?
Because I'm going to recognize,
okay, that that personality
isn't simply there for my needs,
right? And I and I don't even
know always what that person
wants. Well, what that person is
about. What's meaningful to that
person? So, in that sense, from
the principle that I've started,
I started the book with. I think
it's a short space to say
curiosity is going to play an
important role because you you
assume that you don't always
know what that other person is
about because they're not you.
PJ Wehry: And I feel like
curiosity and sympathy are not
the same thing, but they're
adjacent. I think that curiosity
will lead to sympathy. It's just
her focusing on a different step
in the process. Yeah, yeah,
yeah.
Unknown: I think that's right.
PJ Wehry: And I did want to ask
about this, and this might be
getting too granular. But as we
look at the table of contents,
I'm looking at the chapter
titles, and I one nine rules for
moral decency that should be
followed strictly and without
exception is a hilarious way to
end. So thank you for that. I
love that title, especially
because the coffee cup thing.
Anyways, that was you know I'm
not saying philosophers are
never funny, but it's always a
little bit of humor in
philosophy is always enjoyable.
Sometimes it doesn't show up,
but when we talk about decency
toward those around us, I notice
that you you capitalize that
differently from the other
chapters in the book.
Unknown: Nobody's pointed that
out before. I I would say I
would say blame the copyright
person.
PJ Wehry: Oh yeah. Well, it
looks intentional.
Unknown: Yeah. What's the what?
Yeah,
PJ Wehry: it's it looks
intentional. It's decency toward
those around
Unknown: us. Okay. And
PJ Wehry: so you have decency
capitalized, those capitalized,
and us capitalized.
Unknown: Yeah. That's yeah.
That's that's the copy edit,
right? Oh, the copy of the talk.
I ran
PJ Wehry: so much into that.
Unknown: Yeah. No. Okay. Yeah.
No. I thought you were like
making a
PJ Wehry: comment about like the
other or
Unknown: no, no, no. It's it's
the the the no the copy the copy
editor says, "Hey, look, right.
This this is what gets
capitalized, and this is what
gets lowercase. And um, and far
be it for me to argue that fits
into the point with the copy
editor.
PJ Wehry: Okay, got you. I I got
you. Sorry, that's really funny.
I was really excited about that
question. I was like, I think I
noticed something. No,
Unknown: that's really
disappointing. But
PJ Wehry: oh no, no, that's
that's fine. That's really this.
This in some ways is even
better. Sorry, so we go from
decency toward those around us,
and then the next chapter is
widening the circle, and then
widening the circle again. Yeah,
and I think there's good
philosophical reasons, kind of
the history of philosophy, why
even though dogs may be close to
us, they're still the step after
other humans because that's the
way that we have organized,
yeah. Our though at least
Western society is that that
fair say?
Unknown: That's right. It's you
know, and that you know that was
a point of reflection. I just
thought it's going to be easier
for people to see if I start
with people who are more distant
in space and in time, and then
move toward. beings that can
feel more distant to us.
PJ Wehry: I'm curious. When you,
I would love to just hear in
general more about space and
time. But you talked about in
time thinking about generations
in the future.
Unknown: Is
PJ Wehry: there? Do we have any
obligations, or is there a sense
of decency towards people in the
past?
Unknown: Yeah, this is an
important issue, and I don't
think I take it up in the book.
The obviously we have some sense
of it of decency. So, for
instance, right when someone
dies, right, we we don't just.
Like throw them in a in a wood
chipper, right, right, right. We
we think that the that there's
some obligation to them, and
that that you know if if our
feelings for them are not
entirely negative, right, some
obligation when we're talking
about them to say something
respectful, right. That and
there is a book by David Boonen,
philosopher in Colorado, called
"Dead Wrong. And Boonen argues
that we have a number of
obligations toward the to the
dead, and he uses an analogy,
which I think is a really
interesting one. He said, "Look,
suppose it was the case that
somebody is, say, in a long-term
relationship with someone else.
Let's say they're married, or
the and the person that, and I'm
going to use he and she just to
to make it easier for the
example. So, so he's married to
her. She has had a series of
affairs that he doesn't know
about, never knows about, never
finds out about. It violated
their understanding, but he
never found out about it. And
and Boonen says, "Look, would we
say that his life went worse?
Now, if we take a purely
subjective view, his life didn't
go worse because he never knew.
But if we say, "Look, there's
something about that that
diminishes the relationship, and
in that way diminishes his life,
right? Then we say there's there
that that our experience doesn't
simply reduce to the subjective
experience. There's something
outside our subjective
experience that contributes to
making our life go better or
worse. Right now, if if we
ratify that, and I think Woonin
is right here, then you can see
the translation over into into
the past, people who've died,
right? That if if that their
lives can go a bit have, I want
to be careful about how I put
this. Their lives might have
gone worse, right, or will have
gone worse if we disrespect them
afterwards, right? Even though
they won't experience it, right?
There's still something about
that, right? That diminishes
their life, right? And and this
also goes weirdly to the climate
crisis, right? Right. So I'm a
boomer, right? We are the worst
generation on the climate
crisis. We complete, and I will
say this when I teach. I teach
climate crisis a lot to my
students, right? We really
screwed it up, right? We we we
had the opportunity. We messed
it up, right? We knew, right?
But we didn't take care. And I
won't get into the history of
why we knew and the dates and
stuff, but we knew. Let's say
Gen Z, right, or Gen Alpha comes
along, and everybody from the
Boomer generation dies, and
people in say Gen Alpha or Gen
Beta, people resent us. Right,
they're angry at us for what
we've we've done. I think that
diminishes us, even if we're not
there. Right, that diminishes
our generation. It diminishes
the lives of people in our
generation. So the what it's a
it's a weird kind of backwards
causality, right? But I I think
that actually when you reflect
on it, it makes some sense. All
of which is to say, right, that
I think that there can be
decency and indecency toward
people in the past, people whose
lives are are no longer there,
and of course, you know, a lot
of indigenous groups, right,
already recognize that they they
see themselves as connected to
their ancestors and needing to
respect their ancestors, and I
and I think that's a more say a
more spiritual expression of
something that that captures a
phenomenon that I think is there
for us. Again, I didn't discuss
in the book. I didn't think I've
thought about this more since
then. But I think you're right
in asking the question.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, I had Joel
Harrington on. I'm hoping to
have him back on sometime in the
upcoming months, and he's a
historian, and his main focus in
history is to humanize the past.
So that was, anyways, that's a
and your one. Your answer was
great. Thank you. And it's
really interesting to see it
translated across disciplines to
hear like the similarities, but
also like the different
argumentation. So I really
appreciate it. So then, how? And
this is interesting. I think the
coffee, the coffee thing is
still sticking with me. But the
do you get a lot of pushback on
the non-human animals part, or
do you feel like that is
something that most people
understand? And what is your
main focus in when you're
talking in that chapter about
non-human animals?
Unknown: Okay, so the focus is
on you know on our relationship,
and there are these various
debates that have occurred. So
there's one position that I have
some sympathy with is called
moral individualism, right? And
moral individualism is the view
that you that you treat each
creature not according to its
species but according to its
particular abilities. And Peter
Singer is an example of a moral
individualist. And the the one
of the implications of that is
that the experience of, say, an
adult chimpanzee can be as rich
as the experience of, say, a
three-year-old human, which
means, and this is his argument,
we shouldn't do anything to a
chimpanzee that we wouldn't be
willing to do to the
three-year-old, right now, some
people say that that involves
cruelty to the three-year-old,
but I think that's getting the
argument the wrong way around,
right?
PJ Wehry: Yes,
Unknown: right. I think, but I
don't think that's where he's
headed, right? But
PJ Wehry: start using
three-year-olds for
experimentation. Yeah, I don't
think that was
Unknown: his
PJ Wehry: point.
Unknown: Exactly. Although he
hasn't always been on good on
disability, but we'll put that
one to the side, right? But in
any of this, that's that's
that's moral individual, and I
have I have some sympathy with
that. I don't think I've thought
it through enough to say how
much I ratify, but I think
there's there seems something
right about that position. The
of course there are
complications in trying to
compare the richness of
something in one species versus
the richness of a life in
another species. But I think
that that in this very difficult
terrain, right? I think that
stakes out a place that that has
has some significance, right?
Now, having said that, I haven't
gotten a lot of pushback, PJ.
But I teach at Warren Wilson.
Warren Wilson is a college that
is well to the left, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah,
PJ Wehry: yeah.
Unknown: And but I have gotten I
have gotten pushback from a
couple of students at Warren
Wilson in denying that trees
have the right neural structure
to feel pain, right? Right. So
PJ Wehry: yeah, yeah, yeah,
Unknown: yeah. Like if I'm
getting pushback, I'm getting
pushback from the other end.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Unknown: But I, I, I think that
most people. Let me be careful.
I think that a lot people,
certainly a lot more people,
have come to realize the
richness of our fellow
creatures. Many of our fellow
creatures over the last, say,
1015, 20 years, and as that
richness has been recognized, I
think that what I'm saying,
although people might not agree
with it in in in total, but it's
going to resonate for them to
one extent or another.
PJ Wehry: Yeah, and I I sense
that from at least from when I
was a kid, the way that people
talked about animals, I think
there's a more awareness, and I
and if you talk at an abstract
level, I generally find people
agree. It's when you start you
start saying, "Well, we
shouldn't be doing this, and
people are like, "But I like
that, you know. It's like, but
that's that's very common in
morality, and it it takes time,
I think, for the the abstract to
filter down. If that
Unknown: also there's
complications here, PJ. So, for
instance, right? I mean, farm
factory farm maniples involve
just scads of cruelty, all kinds
of cruelty, right? Yes. But if
we stop tomorrow, right? There
are people who live in food
deserts who won't be able to
afford to buy food, right? Yeah,
right. Because the the food they
buy has to be cheap enough, and
factory farming is what makes
animals cheap enough for them to
be able to afford them, right?
So the these issues in the
abstract, I think we can agree
to the principles, and I think
we should, but I think it also
becomes more complicated how you
translate the abstract into
concrete policy.
PJ Wehry: Well, changes to the
system often will involve some
small sacrifices for those who
are doing well in the system,
but they often involve hardship
for. Those like a lot of, I've
heard people talking about this
with climate change and what we
should be telling India to do,
and it's like, like I the us
giving up things here in the
West are very different from
like the the certain parts of
India and their reliance on
coal, for example, like that,
are radically bettering their
lives in ways that we just take
for granted. Is that
Unknown: that's that's the same
kind of thing, yeah.
PJ Wehry: And so, and you know,
not. I love to end an interview
on something just like not
controversial at all. Your your
last chapter before you kind of
sum it all up is on politics and
decency, and it's really it's
interesting that you get more
pushback from the the left. I
live in Central Florida, so my
my conversations are very very
different. But when you talk
about politics and decency, what
does decency look like in the
political structure? And is
there? And I think what you're
talking about for for the rest
of you know morality for the
rest of
Unknown: us. Yeah,
PJ Wehry: it seems to be what
does what does politics look
like at the the neighborhood
level, at the at the city level,
at the hey, I get to vote once
every four years, and I mean,
how powerful is that vote,
anyways? Those kinds of
questions.
Unknown: Yeah, and and I think
this is very specific to the
kinds of situations people find
themselves in, right? Right. We
we talked earlier about the
issue of ice and and the climate
crisis, And it's it's not that
everybody needs to drop what
they're doing, right, and then
throw themselves into into
politics. I've done a lot of
organizing, and and I've done a
lot of grassroots organizing
training. And one of the things
I said, you'll be unsurprised to
hear that after November of
2016, I was asked to do a lot of
organizing training, and and so
when I did the training, one of
the things that that I brought
up before people was: look,
Trump's going to do something
outrageous or say something
every day, right? Yep. And if
you and if you follow, you're
going to burn out if you get
outraged every time this
happens. So what you should
probably do is think, okay,
what's an important political
element or political campaign to
engage, and how many hours do I?
And say take those couple hours
a week, right, and just do that
thing that will make that
particular issue better, right?
That seems to me an aspect of
decency. I will say, right, that
when I was doing those trainings
in 2017 and in 2018, I ended by
saying, "Look, if if you do
this, right, four years from
now, right, you'll he'll be gone
and you'll still be here. Boy,
was I wrong!
PJ Wehry: Well, kind of, because
we had the anyways. That's all
over the place. Yeah, it's it's
been a wild ride.
Unknown: Yeah, and I did. And I
I did spend 31 years in the
upstate of South Carolina, so I
do know what you're talking
about. It was Central Florida.
PJ Wehry: Yes, yes, yes. It's
very yes, and I lived in in
Wisconsin, and I you know I've
spent time in New England, and
yeah, I one of the things I've
enjoyed about the World Cup is
watching Europeans realize how
big America is, and I think one
of the things that Americans
sometimes don't realize unless
they do travel and just spend
time in this place is like just
how different the culture is,
and I I think that idea of the
idea of decency is a is a
helpful. I don't know that it's
healthy to take a moral exemplar
in North Carolina or in New
England and transplant it to
Florida. It would be a very
different. It would work itself
out differently. Is that a fair
way to think about this?
Unknown: I think that's right.
That's and that's where the
particularly in talking about
politics, where the the local
character of this comes in.
PJ Wehry: Now, and so you end
with our stories and our values,
and that's kind of besides your
amazing list of nine strictly
strict and without exception
rules, you talk about our
stories and our values. How does
that help us kind of sum all
this up?
Unknown: Well, we we often tell
stories about our. Right, we're
mostly narrative type creatures.
There, there, there, there are
people who are exceptions.
There's a fluster, Galen
Strawson, who wrote a book
against narrativity, just saying
that we don't have to be
narrative, right? But, but we we
we tell stories, and in telling
those stories, oftentimes our
values come out, and this often
gives us a chance to reflect on
those values. to To say, look,
right, this story that I told
you reveals aspects of me that I
might or might not want to
endorse as mine, but they are
expressions of things that I
value. I I can't remember if I
used the example of the car
pulling out in front of me
slowly. I I know I've used it.
Did I use that in the book? I
don't
PJ Wehry: remember.
Unknown: Okay, I can't remember
the use of them because I was I
remember talking about this
around that time, but the so I
was driving home from the gym.
This was in South Carolina, and
this car pulls out very slowly
in front of me, and I have to I
have to slam on my brakes,
right? And the car just keeps
going slowly on the road, and I
hit the horn, right? And I
don't, I, I, the horn stays on.
I, I, I kept the horn on the
whole time. This guy's on the
road, right? And I came home and
I told, I this guy did this, and
I kept the horn on him the whole
time, and sort of thought about
it later, and I thought, you
know, this kind of macho value
here that I'm expressing is not
something that I actually should
be proud of, right? But I was
expressing a value, right? That
that I was actually I was
expressing the value in in
laying on the horn, right? Yeah,
and and that was a value that I
don't think I really should have
been expressing. Right, so
oftentimes the ways in which we
talk about ourselves reveal the
kinds of things that we value.
So in being curious, sometimes
we ought to be curious about our
own stories and what and what
those stories are saying about
PJ Wehry: us? Do you think
there's value even as you?
Sometimes it just becomes
apparent as you tell the story
and saying it out loud to
somebody and having is is a
great thing. And there's also,
as you were talking, I think
about retelling the story from a
different perspective. How does
that make me look? Is that is
that useful? Is that useful as
well?
Unknown: Yeah, yeah, right,
right. Oh, you're right, right.
I mean, this is the idea. Like,
okay, when you're talking to
somebody and you ask them, well,
okay, if somebody did that to
you, right, what would that be
like for you, right? All right,
and that's switching to the
outside perspective, right, and
looking at yourself, right, from
the outside and telling telling
the story differently. Yeah.
PJ Wehry: Well, so even and I
appreciate your vulnerability,
including the story about laying
on the horn. But like from the
other person's perspective, was
that likely to you know it's
like it's like you're driving
along and you've you've made a
mistake and you're going very
slow for some unknown reason,
and someone just lays on the
horn. How does that, you know,
does that does that cause you to
change? I yeah. So to be
vulnerable with you, this is a
this is a constant struggle for
me in traffic of like people cut
me off, and then I'm like, I
start thinking about how I
could, you know, I get angry,
and then I'm like, "How could I?
You know, what what could I do?
And I'm like, "There's no
there's no scenario where I can
communicate with that person
that ends well, right? It's
like, and so all I'm doing is
I'm just sitting in my in my car
and fuming, right? Like at least
I know well enough not to like
get you know pull over with
them, get out of the car, talk
to them. You know, you see,
like,
Unknown: yeah,
PJ Wehry: that's that's that's
unhealthy. But to sit there and
be like, well, they really
shouldn't do that, and it's
like, okay, and now what? And
I'm like, well, and I'm just
fuming with my kids in the car,
and they're watching me do that,
right?
Unknown: Yeah,
PJ Wehry: it's like I was like,
is that wait? It's like I I just
look like an idiot.
Unknown: Yeah, yeah, you know,
and in a case like this, right,
like, like you know, hitting the
horn is something they should
have done, not just out of my
irritation, but they made a
dangerous move. Like, so you
say, look, that was dangerous,
right?
PJ Wehry: Oh yes,
Unknown: and but you know,
there's there's a limit, right?
Right. Plus, it's South
Carolina. Half the people
driving in front of me have guns
anyway.
PJ Wehry: Yes, very much so.
Wait, yes. So I wanted to ask
you about the nine rules, but I
think that that's just something
that someone should read your
book and enjoy. And think about
whether they should put napkins
on people's coffee or not. But
Unknown: if people take away
nothing from this book, they
really should think
PJ Wehry: about the. Is besides
my and I apologize because I did
the I have the Kindle, so I
don't have the the beautiful
yeah. So I don't get you know
it's it's not the same showing
the audience and being like hey
look you can get on Kindle but
um so besides buying and reading
your excellent book which
everyone should do
Unknown: thank you
PJ Wehry: what is something what
is something that you would
recommend that people do in
response, or they should
meditate on over the next week
in response to this conversation
we've had.
Unknown: I guess there's there's
lots of things you could
recommend, but one thing, and
this doesn't this isn't like of
greater importance than others,
but I think it's one thing that
we often forget to do, which is
to look at people, right? To
look to look at their faces, and
I think it's easier to see the
humanity there if you actually
look at their faces. So that's
something that people can think
about, right?
PJ Wehry: Yes. Which is is that
the first or the second rule?
It's it's one of the one of your
first rules. I really love that.
But
Unknown: the idea of just
looking at somebody, I think, is
really is really important,
right? And you know, somebody
who is unhoused, right? Somebody
who you're irritated with,
somebody who might need some
help crossing the street,
whatever. But but to look at
look look into people's faces, I
think is is a good practice. I
don't do it enough myself, but I
try I try to try myself to do it
more.
PJ Wehry: A great and practical
answer, and I think a great
start to being truly decent,
Todd, Dr. May. Absolute joy
having you on today. Thank you.
Unknown: Well, thanks, B.J.
Thanks, thanks for the
interview. It's been a delight.