Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.21> Article
Research Article

Role of Philosphic Knowledge in Developing Common Good and Justification for Government Funding of the Philosophers

Zhaolu WangBranksome Hall*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Morality can be assessed through a teleological and deontological lens, in which an act is considered to be moral if it advances the common good and the means of achieving this societally beneficial outcome is justified. This study hypothesizes that funding the philosopher's work in a democratic government is moral, as value of philosophy lies in knowledge production and moral enrichment. This is governed by justifying four conditions through empiricism and the scientific method: serving the public interest, involving government role/intervention, strengthening the philosophic knowledge, and financing this knowledge through taxation. Focusing on the observational belief of acts, knowledge production, reasoning, and justification of beliefs continuously develop with philosophic ideas, making them suitable recipients of government funding. Morality is not absolute but socially constructed by several philosophic interventions in conjunction with the government's role. Secondly, there is a need for optimal philosophic knowledge, the adequate knowledge required to attain maximum social advantage with minimum cost. By constructing philosophic knowledge as an economic commodity, their dual status as a public and merit good justify their provision by the state. Lastly, the morality of taxation is discussed through philosophers’ lens such as Robert Nozick and John Rawls. As each citizen benefits from the government-provided facilities, thus paying a part of the income as tax to the government is moral. Moreover, the government is assisted by philosophic knowledge and creating moral goods. Thus, it is justified that funding a philosopher through taxation is moral as it does not infringe on individual freedom.

Keywords: epistemology; government funding; moral enrichment; philosphic knowledge
Published: December 7, 2023
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/21/20231494
Volume: CHR Vol.21
pp. 265-270
Download PDF

References

  1. Descartes, René, John Cottingham, and René Descartes. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Rev. ed. 1996, 13th printing. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  2. Plato, Robin Waterfield, and Plato. Republic. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Pr, 1994.
  3. Locke, John, and Anthony Douglas Woozley. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Fontana Philosophy Classics. London: Collins, 1964.
  4. Sargent, Rose-Mary. “Robert Boyle’s Baconian Inheritance: A Response to Laudan’s Cartesian Thesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 17, no. 4 (December 1986): 469–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(86)90005-1;
  5. Agassi, Joseph. The Very Idea of Modern Science: Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, v. 298. Dordrecht ; New York: Springer, 2013.
  6. Ducheyne, Steffen. “Bacon’s Idea and Newton’s Practice of Induction.” Philosophica 76, no. 2 (January 2, 2005). https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82206.
  7. Dear, Peter. Discipline & Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
  8. Porter, Dahlia. Science, Form, and the Problem of Induction in British Romanticism. Cambridge Studies in Romanticism 120. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  9. Dorling, Jon, and David Miller. “Bayesian Personalism, Falsificationism, and the Problem of Induction.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 55 (1981): 109–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106855.
  10. Woit, Peter. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics. London: Vintage books, 2006.
  11. Siegel, Ethan. “Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory.” Forbes. Accessed June 20, 2022. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/.
  12. Tegmark, Max. “Parallel Universes,” 2003. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/0302131.
  13. Myrvold, Wayne. “Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2022. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/qt-issues/.
  14. Ludwig, Kirk. “The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview.” In The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind, edited by Stephen P. Stich and Ted A. Warfield, 1–46. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998762.ch1.
  15. Zelazo, Philip David, Morris Moscovitch, and Evan Thompson, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  16. Flanagan, Owen. Neuro‐Eudaimonics or Buddhists Lead Neuroscientists to the Seat of Happiness. Edited by John Bickle. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195304787.003.0024.
  17. Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. “The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, edited by Keith Frankish and William M. Ramsey, 1st ed., 316–34. Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139046855.020.
  18. Larrère, Raphaël. “Genetic Engineering and Ethical Issues.” Outlook on Agriculture 32, no. 4 (December 2003): 267–71. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000003322740496.
  19. Wright, Quincy. “Moral Standards in Government and Politics.” Ethics 64, no. 3 (1954): 157–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2378580.
  20. Musgrave, Richard Abel. The Theory of Public Finance a Study in Public Economy. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, 1959.
  21. Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The Humanities in American Life: Insights from a 2019 Survey of the Public’s Attitudes & Engagement. Cambridge, Mass: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Accessed June 20, 2022. https://www.amacad.org/publication/humanities-american-life
  22. Oakland, William H. “Theory of Public Goods.” In Handbook of Public Economics, 2:485–535. Elsevier, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4420(87)80004-6
  23. Kaul, Inge, Isabelle Grunberg, and Marc Stern. Global Public Goods. Oxford University Press, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195130529.001.0001
  24. Groves, Theodore, and John Ledyard. “Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A Solution to the ‘Free Rider’ Problem.” Econometrica 45, no. 4 (May 1977): 783. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912672
  25. Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Repr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1997.
  26. “FFATA Act (2006) | GRANTS.GOV.” Accessed June 20, 2022. https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-policies/ffata-act-2006.html.
  27. “Grant Terminology | GRANTS.GOV.” Accessed June 20, 2022. https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-terminology.html.
  28. O’Connor, Anahad. “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.” The New York Times, September 12, 2016, sec. Well. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html.
  29. Damle, Sg. “Smart Sugar? The Sugar Conspiracy.” Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 8, no. 2 (2017): 191. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_568_17.
  30. Leslie, Ian. “The Sugar Conspiracy.” The Guardian, April 7, 2016, sec. Society. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin.
  31. Spinney, Laura. “Drugs, Money and Misleading Evidence.” Nature 583, no. 7814 (June 29, 2020): 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01911-7.
  32. “Hidden Conflicts? Pharma Payments to FDA Advisers after Drug Approvals Spark Ethical Concerns.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical.
  33. “Publish or Perish.” Nature 467, no. 7313 (September 2010): 252–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/467252a
  34. Moore, Adam D. “Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft: Why Taxation Is ‘On a Par’ with Forced Labor.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 59, no. 3 (September 2021): 362–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12395.
  35. Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974, p. 169.
  36. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.
  37. Knight, Carl. “Luck Egalitarianism.” Philosophy Compass 8, no. 10 (October 2013): 924–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12077.
  38. Michael, Mark A. “Redistributive Taxation, Self-Ownership and the Fruit of Labour.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 14, no. 2 (1997): 137–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24353944.
  39. Christiano, Tom. “Authority.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2020. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/authority/.
  40. Locke, John, and Thomas Preston Peardon. The Second Treatise of Government. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1997.
  41. Binmore, Ken. “A Utilitarian Theory of Political Legitimacy.” In Economics, Values, and Organization, edited by Avner Ben-Ner and Louis Putterman, 101–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174855.005.
  42. Waldron, Jeremy. “Nonsense upon Stilts”: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man. Reprod. en fac-Similé. Routledge Revivals. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group, 2015.