Spencer Case is an international research fellow at Wuhan University in China. He finished his Ph.D. at the University of Colorado Boulder in 2018. He is a US Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He writes popularly for National Reviewand other outlets and runs the Micro-Digressions podcast.
If you were a brick in the wall which brick would you be?
I’m so glad you asked. I’d like to be a brick that protrudes just enough to create a fingertip grip, so that some intrepid person can scale the wall and finally see what’s on the other side. By the way, Graham Oddie’s views on personal identity entail that I literally could have been a brick. I think that’s pretty wild.
What are you working on right now?
A few things are in the pipeline now. The big one is a book I’m working on with my colleague Matt Lutz under the title Are Right and Wrong Real? The first section gives an overview of the available metaethical positions. After that I write a long essay defending moral realism, Matt writes an essay arguing for anti-realism, and then we respond to each other a couple of times. My dissertation was on moral realism, so you’d think I’d be burned out on the debate. But the realism/anti-realism debate for me is like listening to Miles Davis – I find I can’t overdose on it. The other thing I find I can’t do is abstain from writing on controversial topics. So there will be more of that in 2021. The hornet’s nest beckons.
What topic do you think is under explored in philosophy?
Philosophical disposition. I think it’s pretty clear that philosophers’ personalities incline them toward different sorts of views. Our personalities largely determine what arguments seem compelling to us. It would be interesting to systematically study and catalogue the most fundamental dimensions of philosophical personality. I think an important one is one’s attitude toward mystery. Augustine and Pascal are very pro-mystery philosophers. When they encounter aspects of religious belief that seem baffling, this provokes in them a sense of awe, and a sense of their own limitations. Whereas others like Daniel Dennett would say, “That just shows those beliefs are ridiculous!” I think contemporary non-naturalist realists like myself are over on the pro-mystery side as well, though probably not as far. Descartes and Hume, who are normally be classified as opposites, both seem anti-mystery. Quine might be a paradigmatic anti-mystery philosopher. This is just a napkin sketch here. But it would interesting to really make a rigorous study of philosophical temperament and its significance.
What common philosophical dilemma do you think has a clear answer?
I think the “supervenience problem” for non-naturalistic moral realism can be easily dispatched. The problem is supposed to be (roughly) that these realists can’t explain why it would be that moral facts supervene on physical facts. They must posit brute relations between metaphysically distinct entities, normative and naturalistic facts, whereas naturalists and anti-realists can avoid doing this. This is supposed to be a big explanatory burden that the non-naturalist realist hasn’t discharged, or else his theory less parsimonious in a sense we should worry about.
My response is this. Non-naturalist realists are ok with positing brute normative facts, and they don’t seem squeamish about just how many brute normative facts they must posit. The question is just ‘are there such facts are not’? It seems to me that if you’re ok with brute normative facts, then you should be willing to posit brute relations, too. So it’s unclear to me what the dialectical force of this argument is supposed to be.
More importantly, normative facts are sufficient to explain the asymmetric relationship between normative and natural/descriptive facts. If there are any normative moral facts, then it’s surely a fact that two exactly identical actions can’t have different moral statuses. Morality rules out that kind of arbitrariness. So of course if we have two descriptively identical worlds, we’ll have two morally identical worlds. We don’t need to posit any further brute relations to explain this. (I think Matthew Kramer makes this point in Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine, but my copy’s in a storage unit in Idaho, so I can’t check the reference).
What are you reading right now? Would you recommend it?
One of the things I’m reading now is a translation of Journey to the West, the classic Chinese mythical novel. It’s delightful! I highly recommend it, especially for those interested in folklore or fantasy. I find the mischievous nature of Sun Wukong, the Monkey King, often quite hilarious. Like Homer, events are recounted without much description, so there’s a lot left to the imagination. It makes me question the wisdom of a lot of contemporary advice about writing (e.g., “Show don’t tell”).
What’s your top tip or advice for APA members reading this?
Take the risk of saying what you really think when it’s about something important, even – especially! – when you suspect it won’t be well-received. We’re often tempted to rationalize dishonesty in the name of being polite, or friendly, or whatever. Resist that temptation.
If you could wake up tomorrow with a new talent, what would you most like it to be?
The ability to rapidly acquire new languages would be very handy right now. Being able to play a musical instrument would be cool, too. I’d also be quite content waking up with a biblical unit of gold.
What would you like your last meal to be?
I need to think of a meal that can only possibly be served in the very, very distant future.
What technology do you wish the human race could discover/create/invent right now?
Something to extract all of this plastic waste from the ocean and convert it into craft beer.
What is your favorite kind of music?
Jazz. I have heard that some members of the APA aren’t familiar with good jazz music.
What a travesty! They can be cured by listening to this playlist.
This section of the APA Blog is designed to get to know our fellow philosophers a little better. We’re including profiles of APA members that spotlight what captures their interest not only inside the office, but also outside of it. We’d love for you to be a part of it, so please contact us via the interview nomination form here to nominate yourself or a friend.
Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall is an editor at the Blog of the APA who currently teaches philosophy, religion, and education courses solely online for Montclair State University, Three Rivers Community College, and St. John’s University.
