Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: The Philosophical Parent
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE: http://kazez.blogspot.com/
CITY: Dallas
STATE: TX
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/jean-kazez * http://www.smu.edu/Dedman/Academics/Departments/Philosophy/FacultyDirectory/KazezJean * https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz6e0bbR5svCeGZ3dnVVNDdIUmc/view
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Children.
EDUCATION:Pennsylvania State University, B.A. (philosophy), B.A. (classics), both summa cum laude, 1977; Boston University, M.A., 1985; University of Arizona, Ph.D., 1990.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Writer, philosopher, educator, editor, and columnist. University of Texas at Austin, lecturer 1990-91; Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, assistant professor, 1991-96, adjunct assistant professor, 1998–.
WRITINGS
Contributor to Contemporary Debates in Bioethics, edited by Arthur L. Caplan and Robert Arp, Wiley-Blackwell 2013. Contributor to professional journals, including Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Philosophical Studies, and Philosophy Now. Also editor, columnist, and contributor at the Philosophers’ Magazine.
SIDELIGHTS
Jean Kazez is a philosopher and writer. Her area of academic specialization is applied ethics with a focus on theories of well-being, animal rights, and ethics of procreation. Her interest in issues at the theoretical end of applied ethis include the nature of the good life, the moral status of animals, and various issues concerning having and raising issues.
The Weight of Things
In her first book, The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life, Kazez explores the nature of the good life, dealing both with theoretical questions and the everyday concerns of people and real-life questions. Among the topics discussed are the priority of morality and the role of reason an luck in the good life. Kazez also addresses issues connected with religion, permanence, and death, as well as values such as autonomy and personal progress. A major subject is the important role of happiness in peoples’ lives.
Kazez draws from a wide range of sources, from philosophy and the history of philosophy to history, literature, movies, and personal experience. In the process she examines both classic and contemporary accounts of what it means to be happy and to lead the good life. In the process she examines the view s of philosophers from Aristotle to contemporary philosophers such as Peter Singer and Susan Wolf, as well as from the views of other traditions, such as Buddhism. “Kazez’s warmly written book investigates the problem by comparing theories with actual lives,” wrote Guardian Online contributor Steven Poole.
Animalkind
In Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, Kazez provides an interdisciplinry exploration of ethics an animals while exploring the ethical differences between animals and humans. Kazez looks at how various cultures over the years have viewed the status of animals, as well as specific religious an historical viewpoints. She also examines how philosophers have addressed ethical issues related animals. While not advocating an orthodoxy that promotes complete equality between animals and humans, Kazez nevertheless advocates that humans owe each animal a type of due respect rather than specific rights.
Throughout the book, Kazez balances a variety of philosophical viewpoints with various facts and tales about animals. Kazez closes with a look at the rationalizations for eating animals and issues such as animal experimentation and extinctions. “Kazez … takes the middle ground in the debate about animal rights,” wrote a Reference & Research Book News contributor. Gary Varner, writing for the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews website, remarked: “Written to engage non-philosophers, the method is Socratic: Kazez asks a range of thought-provoking questions that goad the reader into appreciating how complex the issues are. While offering little new to philosophers studying animal ethics, the book is excellent reading for those with no prior exposure to the relevant philosophical literature.”
The Philosophical Parent
The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions About Having and Raising Children explores the many philosophical quandaries of parenthood. Kazez points out that philosophical questions arise even before the children are born, such as questions about why people want children in the first place and the validity of creating even more people in a crowded world where life for many has numerous travails. Kazez examines the question of whether or not adoptive parenthood is the same as biological parenhood and whether or not parents should share their lifestyle with their children, especially if that lifestyle is unorthodox. Other issues addressed include when life begins, vaccination, circumcision, gender differences, stay-at-home parenthood, lying to children, and religious education.
Kazez examines parenthood from the earliest days to college years and beyond. In the process she not only draws on philosophical tools but also on her own personal experience as a parent as she discusses the happiness or meaning people derive from parenthood. “Kazez’s theoretical approach resides in Aristotle’s idea that a child is an extension of the self,” wrote Metapsychology Online Reviews contributor Samuel LeBlanc, who went on to note: “The Philosopher Parent is a diverse, rich, funny, tragic, as well as analytical adventure in one of life’s most challenging journeys.” A Publishers Weekly contributor commented: Kazez “picks and chooses her controversies carefully.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Library Journal, August 1, 2017,”Arts & Humanities,” review of The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions About Having and Raising Children, p. 89.
Publishers Weekly, June 5, 2017, review of The Philosophical Parent, p. 49.
Reference & Research Book News, August, 2007, review of The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life; May, 2010, review of Animalkind:What We Owe to Animals.
ONLINE
Guardian Online, https://www.theguardian.com/ (April 28, 2007), Steven Poole, “Question Time,” includes review of The Weight of Things.
Jean Kazez Website, http://kazez.blogspot.com (April 13, 2018).
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, https://ndpr.nd.edu/ (October 3, 2010), Gary Varner, review of Animalkind.
Metapsychology Online Reviews, http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/ (January 2, 2018), Samuel LeBlanc, review of The Philosophical Parent.
Southern Methodist University Website, https://www.smu.edu/ (April 13, 2018), author faculty profile.
Jean Kazez
6726 La Manga Dr. Dallas, TX 75248
mobile: 214-202-8937
email: jkazez@smu.edu
website: kazez.blogspot.com
Education
PhD, Philosophy, University of Arizona, December 1990
MA, Philosophy, Boston University, 1985
BA, Classics (Summa Cum Laude), Pennsylvania State University, 1977
BA, Philosophy (Summa Cum Laude), Pennsylvania State University, 1977
Employment
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Southern Methodist University, 1998-present
Assistant Professor, Southern Methodist University, 1991-1996
(resigned after medical and maternity leave, 1997)
Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin, 1990-1991
Areas of specialization
Applied Ethics: theories of well-being, animal rights, ethics of procreation
Areas of competence
Ethics, Philosophy of Mind
Books
The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions about Having and Raising
Children, Oxford University Press, July 2017
• Philosophical problems we encounter in the course of becoming parents
and raising children, in chronological order. Topics include deciding to
have children, the ethics of optimizing our children, when life begins,
childbirth, custody, circumcision, gender education, stay-at-home
parents, lying to children, religious education, duties of adult children to
their parents, and the happiness or meaning we derive from
parenthood.
• Endorsements: Julian Baggini, Christine Overall, Berit Brogaard, Michael
W. Austin
• Reviews: Publisher’s Weekly, Library Journal, Times Literary
Supplement
• Media: interviewed by Krys Boyd on Think! (KERA) in 2017;
interviewed by Robert Talisse on Books in Philosophy (podcast) in
2017.
Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010
2
• An interdisciplinary exploration of ethics and animals. I consider how
the status of animals has been understood within various cultures,
religions, and historical circumstances; and how it’s been understood by
philosophers over time. Claims about human-animal differences are
tested against the latest work in ethology and comparative psychology.
The core of the book is an account of the moral status of animals that
rejects recent egalitarian orthodoxies, but nevertheless advocates for
major changes in the way animals are treated. The final chapters look
closely at rationalizations for eating animals and at contemporary issues
such as animal experimentation and the extinction of species.
• Translated into Portuguese.
• Endorsements: Peter Singer, Temple Grandin, Marc Bekoff
• Reviews: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Times Higher Education,
Booklist, TSO, VegNews, The Philosophers’ Magazine, Between the
Species, Philosophy in Review, The Philosopher, BBC Wildlife Magazine
• Media: interviewed by Krys Boyd on Think! (KERA) in 2010
The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007
• An exploration of the nature of the good life. The book delves deeply into
theoretical questions while always staying close to the everyday
concerns of people struggling with real-life questions. Some topics
covered include: the priority of morality, the role of reason and luck in
the good life, issues about religion, permanence, and death, the centrality
of happiness, and values like autonomy and personal progress. The book
draws on recent philosophy and the history of philosophy, as well as
history, literature, movies, and personal experience.
• Translated into Korean, Portuguese, and Persian.
• Chapter 5 reprinted in Fundamentals of Ethics (Russ Shafer-Landau, ed.),
Oxford University Press.
• Endorsements: Edward Langerak, Marcia McKelligan
• Reviews: The Guardian, Church Times, Choice Magazine
• Media: interviewed by Krys Boyd on Think! (KERA) in 2007
Articles
Review of Martha Nussbaum and Sol Levmore, Aging Thoughtfully: Conversations
About Retirement, Romance, Wrinkles, and Regret. Essays in Philosophy: Vol.
19: Iss. 1, Article 9.
“The Taste Issue in Animal Ethics,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, forthcoming
"Should the Great Apes be Used in Biomedical Research? No" Current Debates in
Bioethics (Arthur Caplan and Robert Arp, eds.), Wiley-Blackwell, 2013
“Can Counterfactuals Save Mental Causation?” Australasian Journal of
Philosophy, 73:71-90, 1995
Review of Dan Lloyd, Simple Minds, Philosophical Review, 103:718-20, 1994
“Computationalism and the Causal Role of Content,” Philosophical Studies,
75:231-260, 1994
3
Review of C. Anthony Anderson and Joseph Owens, ed., Propositional Attitudes:
The Role of Content in Logic, Language and Mind, Notre Dame Journal of
Formal Logic, 35:299-309, 1994
Review of Greg McCulloch, The Game of the Name, Mind 99: 647-650, 1990
Popular writing and editing
News analyst, The Prindle Post, 2017-2018
Arts and reviews editor, The Philosophers' Magazine, 2010 – present
Columnist, The Philosophers’ Magazine, 2008 – present
Guest editor, “Is it Wrong to Have Children? (forum),” The Philosophers’
Magazine, 4th Quarter, 2016
“Our Children, Ourselves,” The Philosophers’ Magazine, 3rd Quarter, 2015
Review of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality (Alex Rosenberg), Free Inquiry
July/August 2012
"Family Ties,” The Philosophers’ Magazine, 2nd Quarter, 2011
Review of The Life You Can Save (Peter Singer), The Philosophers' Magazine, 1st
quarter, 2009
25 entries and essays in The Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions (Mark
Vernon, ed.), Chambers-Harrap, 2009
“Dying to Eat: The Vegetarian Ethics of Twilight.” In Twilight and Philosophy
(Rebecca Housel and Jeremy Wisnewski, eds.), Wiley-Blackwell 2009
“The Long and Winding Road,” in Mama PhD (Elrena Evans and Caroline Grant,
eds.), Rutgers University Press, 2008
Review of Experiments in Ethics (Kwame Anthony Appiah), The Philosophers'
Magazine, 2nd Quarter, 2008
Review of Philosophers without Gods (Louise Anthony, ed.), Free Inquiry,
February/March 2008
“People Don’t Die, Do They?” Free Inquiry, October/November 2007
“More Happiness Please,” Philosophy Now, May/June 2007
“The Good Life and the Mommy Wars,” The Philosophers' Magazine, 2nd Quarter,
2007
“How Good Do We Have to Be?” Philosophy Now, November/December 2006
Talks
“The Taste Issue in Animal Ethics,” Animal Ethics Workshop, Texas State
University, February 2017
Critical response to three papers in The Moral Rights of Animals (ed. Engel and
Garrett), Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress, August 2016
“Saints and Sinners,” Dallas Museum of Art, February 2016
“Our Children, Our Selves,” Dallas Philosophers’ Forum, November 2015
“The paradox of age and happiness” SMU Philosophy Club, Fall 2013
“Is life meaningless?” Feminine Faces of Freethought conference, Fall 2012
"Do Animals Have Rights?" SMU Philosophy Club, Spring 2012
"Love and Death," SMU Secular Student Club, Spring 2012
"Why Are There So Few Women in Philosophy?" SMU Philosophy Club, Fall 2011
4
“Brave New Animal.” Texas State University, September 2011
"Is Meat Green?" SMU Vegetarian Club, Fall 2010
“Animal Ethics without Equality.” University of Arkansas, September 2010
“How Good Do We Have to Be?” The Dallas Philosopher’s Forum, April 2007
Comments on Heimir Geirsson, “Truth in Belief Reports,” Central Philosophical
Association, October 1994
“Am I a Brain in a Vat, and Why Does It Matter?” The Dallas Philosopher’s
Forum, January 1994
Comments on “Mental Causation and Explanatory Exclusion,” American
Philosophical Association, Central Division, April 1993
“Computationalism and the Causal Role of Content, “ American Philosophical
Association, Pacific Division, March 1993
Comments on “Supervenience Redux,” American Philosophical Association,
Pacific Division, March 1992
Invited Conferences
NEH Institute, “The Nature of Meaning,” Rutgers University, Jerry Fodor and
Ernest Lepore, directors, Summer 1993
Oberlin Colloquium, “Thought and Language,” Oberlin University, April 1993
Honors and Awards
Fink Award (for outstanding graduate student in philosophy), University of
Arizona, 1989
Riesen Award (for outstanding graduate student essay in philosophy), co-
winner, University of Arizona, 1989
Borden Parker Bowne Fellowship (for outstanding graduate student in
philosophy), Boston University, 1983
Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, 1977
Service to Profession
Referee for Princeton University Press; Pacific Philosophical Quarterly;
Routledge; The Journal of Ethics; The Journal of Medical Ethics.
Teaching
I regularly teach Animal Rights; Topics in Moral Philosophy: The Meaning of Life;
Environmental Ethics; and Topics in Moral Philosophy: Procreation and
Parenthood.
I have also taught Philosophy of Literature; Introduction to Philosophy;
Contemporary Moral Problems; Ancient Philosophy; Philosophy of Mind;
Philosophy of Language; Philosophy and Gender; Logic; and Critical
Thinking.
Jean Kazez
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Ph.D., University University of Arizona
Hyer Hall 210E
jkazez@smu.edu
curriculum vitae
Blog
Profile
I am interested in issues at the theoretical end of applied ethics. For example, the nature of the good life, the moral status of animals, and various puzzles about having and raising children. In addition to teaching at SMU, I am the reviews editor and write a column for The Philosophers' Magazine.
Publications (Selected)
The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions about Having and Raising Children, Oxford University Press, July 2017.
“The Taste Issue in Animal Ethics,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, forthcoming
"We Should Prohibit the Use of Chimpanzees and Other Great Apes in Biomedical Research," in Contemporary Debates in Bioethics, ed. Arthur L. Caplan and Robert Arp (Wiley-Blackwell 2013).
Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.
"Imagine That," a regular arts column in The Philosopher's Magazine.
"How Good Do We Have to Be?," Philosophy Now, November/December 2006.
"Can Counterfactuals Save Mental Causation?," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (1995): 71-90.
"Computationalism and the Causal Role of Content," Philosophical Studies 75 (1994): 231-60
Courses Taught
PHIL 3375: Topics in Moral Philosophy: The Meaning of Life
PHIL 3375: Topics in Moral Philosophy: Procreation and Parenthood
PHIL 3377: Animal Rights
PHIL 3379: Environmental Ethics
PHIL 1318: Contemporary Moral Problems
About
I am a philosopher and writer. I write about the good life, animal ethics, parenthood, gender, and whatever else happens to interest me. I teach philosophy at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. You can reach me at jkazez@smu.edu.
I've written three books. In 2007 I published The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life with Wiley-Blackwell. In 2010 I published Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals with the same publisher. In 2017 I published The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions about Having and Raising Children with Oxford University Press. Find out more at the tabs above.
Other stuff: I am an editor, columnist, and contributor at The Philosophers' Magazine. (Here's my most recent contribution.) I write about news and ethics at The Prindle Post. I also occasionally write a Psychology Today blog. (Here's one about when parental obligations cease.)
Arts & humanities
Library Journal. 142.13 (Aug. 1, 2017): p89+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 Library Journals, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/
Full Text:
[...]
Kazez, Jean. The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions About Having and Raising Children. Oxford Univ. Jul.
2017.336p. bibliog. ISBN 9780190652609. $34.95; ebk. ISBN 9780190652623. PHIL
Kazez (philosophy, Southern Methodist Univ.; The Weight of Things) begins by summing up the relationship between parenting and philosophy perfectly when she writes "having children turns every parent and parent-to-be into a philosopher." For this reviewer, the parent of two small children, that claim is as valid. The questions that arise for parents and would-be parents are numerous and cover a wide range of topics such as "Is there anything special about having a child?" to "Should parents reinforce gender?" Kazez helps with finding answers or at least showing the complexity of these questions by arranging the topics chronologically by stages of parenting and looking at them through the lens of different philosophical views and parenting experience. Most importantly, these chapters are also short and can be read individually so that parents can focus on topics of interest and actually finish reading them. VERDICT Kazez's combination of philosophy and parenting experience makes this work recommended for parents who are searching for answers to meaningful questions surrounding child-rearing.--Scott Duimstra, Capital Area Dist. Lib., Lansing, MI
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Arts & humanities." Library Journal, 1 Aug. 2017, p. 89+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A500009443/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=4b06d6f0. Accessed 24 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A500009443
The Philosophical Parent: Asking the
Hard Questions About Having and
Raising Children
Publishers Weekly.
264.23 (June 5, 2017): p49.
COPYRIGHT 2017 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
The Philosophical Parent: Asking the Hard Questions About Having and Raising Children Jean Kazez.
Oxford Univ., $34.95 (336p) ISBN 978-0-19-065260-9
Philosophy professor Kazez (Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals) uses a mix of philosophical proofs
and science to explore a mix of theoretical and practical parenting questions. Questions in the former
category include whether babies are lucky to be born and what parents are for; questions in the latter include
whether to circumcise or vaccinate and whether to raise children with religious beliefs. She appeals to new
parents' innate sense of logic and ethics as alternatives to parenting experts. Kazez grounds her ideas in the
Aristotelian perspective that a biological child is "another self, but separate" in order to understand parents'
intense identification with their children and the obligations conferred by this unique relationship. She picks
and chooses her controversies carefully
3/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1521919512155 2/4
Gale Document Number: GALE|A495538384
3/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1521919512155 3/4
Animalkind; what we owe to animals
Reference & Research Book News.
25.2 (May 2010):
COPYRIGHT 2010 Ringgold, Inc.
http://www.ringgold.com/
Full Text:
9781405199377
Animalkind; what we owe to animals.
Kazez, Jean.
Wiley-Blackwell
2010
206 pages
$89.95
Hardcover
Blackwell public philosophy
HV4701
Kazez (philosophy, Southern Methodist U.) takes the middle ground in the debate about animal rights and
argues for respect for animals. She confesses to her own inconsistencies and dilemmas and refrains from
preaching about what people should and shouldn't do; instead, she explores the ethical issues arising from
human-animal interactions. She discusses what has been said about the human-animal differences in ancient
religion and indigenous myth and the writings of Western and Eastern philosophers, what can be learned
from animal psychologists and ethologists, and whether humans and animals are on different moral planes.
She describes uses of animals throughout human history, such as for food, warmth, vaccines, and sport, and
declining species.
([c]2010 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Animalkind; what we owe to animals." Reference & Research Book News, May 2010. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A225459083/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=4fd04dfe.
Accessed 24 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A225459083
3/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1521919512155 4/4
The weight of things; philosophy and the
good life
Reference & Research Book News.
22.3 (Aug. 2007):
COPYRIGHT 2007 Ringgold, Inc.
http://www.ringgold.com/
Full Text:
9781405160773
The weight of things; philosophy and the good life.
Kazez, Jean.
Blackwell Publishing
2007
177 pages
$54.95
Hardcover
BD431
Philosophers still address questions of how people should live, says Kazez (philosophy, Southern Methodist
U., Texas), but have stopped talking to general readers, thus leaving them to the mercies of religion,
psychology, and self-help books. She presents traditional and contemporary views from philosophy on such
matters as reason and luck, necessities, hard choices, and trying to be good.
([c]20072005 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
"The weight of things; philosophy and the good life." Reference & Research Book News, Aug. 2007.
General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A167161776/ITOF?
u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=d906c93d. Accessed 24 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A167161776
JEAN KAZEZ
Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals
Jean Kazez, Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 206pp., $24.95 (pbk), ISBN 9781405199384.
Reviewed by Gary Varner, Texas A&M University
This book offers an overview of basic questions in animal ethics, both theoretical and applied. Written to engage non-philosophers, the method is Socratic: Kazez asks a range of thought-provoking questions that goad the reader into appreciating how complex the issues are. While offering little new to philosophers studying animal ethics, the book is excellent reading for those with no prior exposure to the relevant philosophical literature and could be used for a portion of an introductory level course in contemporary moral issues.
The title plays on how recognizing others as members of our own kind calls forth the moral response of kindness:
"Kindness" and "kinds" share a common origin, the English cynd, also the root of "kin." To be kind, if we take etymology as our guide, is to treat someone as kin, as "my kind." An enlightened extension of the idea is that not just family members matter, but all members of my kind -- my tribe, my nation, or even my species. And an even more enlightened idea allows that members of other species could be my kind at least to some degree, and in a morally relevant sense. (pp. 30-31)
The flip side is that differences can matter too, and this leads Kazez to look hard at what animals -- including humans -- are really like. The results are not clear-cut, because the picture that emerges is complicated and multi-faceted.
She begins by describing how religions and indigenous myths have misconstrued or distorted what the differences are and how humans and animals are related. This includes various indigenous cultures' beliefs about hunting: that animals voluntarily give their lives to respectful hunters, or that they don't "really" die and that ensures an unending supply of meat. Such myths are readily dismissed today, but Kazez thinks that a similar idea about domestication -- that animals "chose" it -- is "no more plausible" (p. 16). Both ideas, she suggests, are salves for consciences uneasy about humans' relationships with animals. Ancient and modern civilizations have all realized that "Killing an animal is not like pulling a carrot out of the ground" (p. 18).
In succeeding chapters, she examines how thinking, self-awareness, freedom, and morality are all multi-faceted and each comes in degrees. Still, she denies that there is a good analogy between species bias and racial or sexual bias:
We have been thinking about issues of race and gender long enough that we have at least a rough notion -- though controversial around the edges -- what it's like to be bias free. If we are without prejudice, we will not see vast differences separating men and women, blacks and whites.
But if we are without prejudice against animals, surely we will still see vast differences. Species differences are much greater than race and gender differences. Granted, they are exaggerated by a tradition that puts animals on the other side of some profound divide -- casting them as devoid of consciousness, or reason, or emotion, or anything resembling morality. Still, even if the differences are not so stark, they are real. There is far more reason in people than in crows, even if crows are impressive. Morality is much more highly developed in people than in dogs. If we declared males or whites superior in these ways, we'd be sexists or racists. But if we notice deep differences between different species, we are simply being realistic. (p. 81)
She then endorses a version of the view that "An individual's life has more value the more that it is full of desire-satisfaction" (p. 83). Since having the suite of cognitive capacities listed above "results in a profusion of desires," this justifies the general conclusion that humans' lives have special value; "consonant with a very deep-rooted belief that we are not our circumstances," however, it makes sense to value a life on the basis of its "potential, not the way it's actually going to play out" (p. 85).
Kazez then analyzes various human uses of animals in terms of two factors: (1) showing "due respect" for lives based on their potential for a rich tapestry of desires, and (2) how clearly our uses of animals promote "serious and compelling" goals rather than "mere desires" (p. 106). Humans are justified in killing animals for food, if that is the only way to survive, because the respect due to a normal human is greater than that due any animal, and under the circumstances killing animals is the only way to promote the serious goal of human flourishing.
There's no question that it's disrespectful to end an animal's life, then dismember her and turn her into stew… . But using isn't the only way of disrespecting. Standing by idly while someone fades away, or letting yourself fade away, can involve disrespect as well. (p. 103)
So while Paleolithic hunters treated the animals they hunted disrespectfully, it would have been a greater act of disrespect to leave their families malnourished or starved.
When it comes to modern humans living in affluent, industrialized societies it is less clear that serious goals are served by meat-heavy diets. The same goes for leather clothing and various uses of animals for entertainment, decorations, and so on. Kazez thinks, however, that some medical research clearly serves a serious goal and saves human lives. Her paradigm example is Jonas Salk's development of the polio vaccine; about 100,000 monkeys died, but there were 57,000 reported cases of polio in 1952 alone. Harry Harlow's work also had the serious goal of better understanding the effects of maternal deprivation: "it's critical for case workers to know that a child's clinging to his mother is not evidence that abuse has not occurred. Parents need to know that children want physical comfort even more than they need food" (p. 143). But Kazez finds it implausible to say that Harlow's research was an important contribution when other approaches were leading in the same direction.
The so-called problem of marginal cases arises for any view which, like Kazez's, holds that certain cognitive capacities give special value to human lives. The "marginals" are human beings who lack the normal suite of human cognitive capacities. The problem is how to justify treating these humans differently than animals with similar cognitive capacities. Kazez claims that her view's focus on kinds addresses this concern:
When people are impaired -- less capable than before, or than they "should" have been -- we don't simply think of them sui generis, simply as the kind of thing they've come to be … . It makes sense to be extra distressed by the combination of the original misfortune and the prospect of a person being left behind.
Obviously certain cognitive impairments are going to alter what respectful treatment of them requires, but this at least gives some reason for choosing to use animals in medical research rather than "marginal" humans. Our "extra sympathy" for marginal humans also stems from the sense of our own vulnerability that their situation excites (p. 96).
Kazez closes by emphasizing that "Respect is not a perfectly crisp concept," so "for the foreseeable future, there's bound to be some dispute over what a respectful person may and may not do" (p. 174). Kazez eats no red meat but eats fish occasionally, she buys eggs from cage-free or free-range sources, and she generally avoids leather products.
I tell my tale knowing that from the perspective of a scrupulous vegan, I'm not doing that well. The story is really meant for the reader who has given up nothing and can't imagine making the leap from total dependence on animal products to total abstinence. If the really important thing is the benefit to animals, do not scoff at reducing consumption as a positive step. The point is not to be perfect but to prevent (as much as you can) harm to animals. (pp. 179-80)
Kazez is optimistic, however, that a combination of technological advances (e.g. in vitro meat) and alliances with other concerns (about health and environmental impacts) will continue to drive improvements in animal welfare throughout society.
Readers familiar with the philosophical literature on animal ethics will find little that is new in this book, but that is not its goal -- it is designed to provide an engaging and fair-minded overview of the area. Kazez does, however, offer a novel and insightful objection to what Tom Regan says about survival hunting.
In The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983, p. 351) Regan imagines that four humans and a dog are adrift in a lifeboat and that if the others do not eat one of the five, none will survive. Regan claims that under these circumstances his worse-off principle implies that the humans should eat the dog. Regan's worse-off principle holds that where non-comparable harms are involved, respectful treatment entails choosing the option under which you avoid harming that individual (or individuals) who would be harmed significantly more than any would be harmed under the alternative option(s). According to Regan, death harms a human being significantly more than it harms any non-human animal, so in the lifeboat case the worse-off principle requires us to avoid harming the humans, which means eating the dog. Regan cautions that what his rights view implies in these "exceptional circumstances" cannot be generalized to contemporary animal agriculture, because we have options other than eating meat; but Kazez argues that even when humans have no other option, it's not really a lifeboat case, for the same reason that Regan denies that medical research constitutes a lifeboat case.
Regarding medical research, Regan acknowledges that his worse-off principle would seem to imply that humans can justifiably kill animals to save themselves from a disease that threatens them (because death would harm them significantly more than it would harm any research animals). He holds, however, that "Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not voluntarily choose to take them," and this means that it is wrong to infect animals who aren't at risk from a disease themselves in order to reduce the risk that disease poses to humans. Regan holds that this "special consideration" blocks the application of his worse-off principle to the case of medical research (Case for Animal Rights, pp. 322 & 377). Another way to put the same point, however, is that this means that the medical research case isn't a true lifeboat case, because in a true lifeboat case, all the parties are in the same risky situation.
Kazez notes that the animals killed by Paleolithic hunters were not normally "in the same boat," because the hunted animals didn't need to eat meat to survive -- they were generally herbivores with plenty of forage available. So, she says: "Regan would have to say the same thing about Mr. Caveman. It's his problem that he's starving and he has no right to make it the aurochs' problem" (p. 192).
This is a novel insight about what Regan's rights view should say about survival hunting. To my knowledge, no one else has noticed how his reasons for opposing medical research would also count against survival hunting.
Review - The Philosophical Parent
Asking the Hard Questions About Having and Raising Children
by Jean Kazez
Oxford University Press, 2017
Review by Samuel LeBlanc
Jan 2nd 2018 (Volume 22, Issue 1)
Being a parent is the best and worst thing that can happen. Or, as Anne Lamott, mother of Sam, is quoted in Kazez's The Philosopher Parent, "I feel that he has completely ruined my life, because I just didn't used to care so much" (177). To this, add that there are more than 7 billion of us on the planet and you have a book that is easy and impossible to write. Parenthood is inherently social, so much so, that talking about it can be nauseating. Everyone has an opinion on every conceivable subject about what should--and shouldn't--be done. But asking thoughtful questions is a refreshing exercise for tired parents, like me with my 3-year-old daughter, and to this end, Kazez's contribution is a welcome one.
A parent of twins herself, Kazez divides her book in 18 fundamental questions that find their ways in parents' busy lives. She balances rigorous philosophical analysis, handling meta-ethical issues--such as the burden or blessing of being born; and practical matters with philosophical import--like in the case of lying to one's child. The tone of the book is just right, inviting readers into an intelligent and rich conversation.
Kazez's theoretical approach resides in Aristotle's idea that a child is an extension of the self. For example, she equates being concerned by the survival of her child with her own survival, or when she feels a touch puzzled about being proud of her child's accomplishment. Most of her arguments rely on this core idea, whether they relate to population control, custody issues, adoption, or circumcision.
Once the metaphysical issues are in place, the journey begins with life. Chapter 2 is devoted to conception, whether it's a duty, a fulfillment of a desire, or a source of happiness. The provocative idea that we are lucky to be born, presented through Dworkin's argument, is contrasted with the possible rights of yet-to-be-born children, and if parenthood is good as such. Kazez relies on the compelling question, "Can I function as a parent, regarding this child as a second self?" (29) to guide her case for having children, or not.
Chapters 3 and 4 attend to quantity and quality, nuancing threats of global overpopulation with regional variations, and personal realization. From divine to governmental interventions, Kazez confronts various viewpoints and balances her personal growth approach with the virtue of social responsibility. Discussions of quantity easily transition into preoccupations of the "quality" of newborns, in chapter 4, where parents are responsible for some choices. For instance, ought parents screen for future ailments (as we did), use in vitro fertilization, or optimize the time for conception? Kazez's analysis does justice to introduce the reader to some of what is in play prior to birth.
Actual conception, the topic of chapter 5, appears a bit far into the book, but nonetheless refreshingly as it involves a rich set of questions. The origin of life is a philosophical marvel, as we consider the growth of an embryo into a child composed of millions of cells. Matters are made more complex and unpredictable with Kazez's analysis of twins and miscarriages. If all goes well, 9 months later, parents embark on a journey described in chapter 6 as a voyager's trek. Natural births are contrasted with drug assisted ones by focusing on issues of pain and pleasure, as well as other values such as maximizing experience awareness, to conclude that every birthing story is memorable.
Once the child is there, whose is it? Mine, yours, everyone's, or no one's? Having created a new organism, chapters 7 and 8 deal with questions of property, identity, autonomy, prerogatives, and adoption. Once again, seeing a child as second self accomplishes much of the argument in having the right to determine the child's future. Building around Locke's theory of property, Kazez explains that unlike, say a house, a child has rights with regards to the parent; a human-to-human relationship is symmetrical in a way that a human-to-thing relationship isn't. As soon as parental rights are respected, including the right to give up or adopt a child, nothing, says Kazez, prevents adoptive parents from being fully parents themselves.
With rights and prerogatives determined, the aims of the parent are analyzed in chapter 9. Here again, the broad Aristotelian framework of the good life is the guiding voice. While happiness comes in many forms, the parent in Kazez's view ought to be "flexibly directive" (142), discouraging the tyrannical or steward-like approaches. Heritage and open-endedness underpin her philosophical approach in a way that reinforces the child's growing sense of autonomy.
But, obviously, all isn't up to the child. Circumcision and child-care are taken up in chapters 10 and 11. The former benefits from a health, religious, and social analysis, accepting that it may be impossible to determine whether to cut or not. Exploring her own Jewish heritage, Kazez admits to the unease behind the Orthodox reason for circumcision, that is of a father doing a "very, very hard thing," (168) to their boy as a testament of faith. From this hard event, Kazez transitions to the daily challenges associated with caring for a new life as part of already full ones. Women face especially dividing decisions as society still deems them to be predominant caregivers. Is motherhood compatible with a flourishing of life? If Anne Lamott, quoted above, is one version, it isn't everyone's. Kazez also explores the wanting and repetitive sides of parenthood, which for some cannot replace the satisfaction of a career.
With aging children, even very young ones, parents are confronted with the gender question. Chapter 12 tackles the blue pink dichotomy, with the philosophical parent not accepting this simplistic division. For Kazez, this issue concerns gender, sex, mental differences, and identity. Transcending the explicit sex differences associated with genitalia, Kazez appeals to biology to shed light on the spectrum of sexuality, including trans- and intergender realities. When it comes to the polemical theme of "male versus female" brains, she argues how boys and girls are more alike, than unlike, concluding that a balanced view of gender is required.
Turning to a more practical theme, the philosophical parent is put to task when it comes to group efforts in chapter 13. Should we to contribute to the school parent teacher association, attend performances of all schoolchildren (not only ours), and vaccinate our child? All of these issues boil down to the free-rider problem, which is that so long as others engage (e.g. get vaccinated), me or my child is free to do whatever she wants. But, as argues Kazez, these behaviors betray society's projects, where no child is more special than another, and that we should strive to flourish together.
The categorical wrongness of free-riding affords a nice transition into chapter 14's world of lying. Asking the questions of if and when is it all right to lie, Kazez covers many different scenarios. From convenient lies to avoid long explanations with a child for pragmatic reasons, to lying for one's child, the philosophical parent should engage in a progressive disclosure of truths. What is crucial, argues Kazez, is that the value of truthfulness is upheld. As we move to chapter 15, truth is front and center as we explore the issue of religion. Of Jewish tradition, Kazez explores this with regards to her children, for whom she wished a deeper religious experience, in the spirit of a child as a second self. However, after attending several religious education classes with her children, the unanswered questions, theological shortcuts, and indoctrination provoke Kazez to remove her twins. Respecting various approaches to religion, as well as parents' prerogatives, she argues for light, open, and progressive religious contact.
As time passes by children grow up. This puts Kazez's emphasis on the child as second self to the test. Exploring alternative ways of letting go, or not, control is at the heart of this process, which is taken up in chapter 16. Cases of obsessive parents and over-identifying ones, to the self-orphaning of children are dealt with the adroitness that comes with flourishing mindset. Kazez's identification to her children, we are told, facilitated their departure, since she sought adventure. Letting go, even if trying, nourishes autonomy.
Yet for the most part, it isn't full autonomy as the parent child relationship endures. In chapter 17 Kazez inverts the parent child relationship. What ought our children do for us? Do they owe us anything? Can they identify with us as a second self? Kazez builds from Confucian filial piety to invite children to be good to their parents, but falls short of reverence, for as we are told and can imagine, it depends on the context. An unhappy childhood, caused by heartless parents can't be expected to foster a caring relationship. Here, self-orphaning might be the only good option, despite its costs.
For all of the questioning and uneasy or paradoxical answers, why become a parent? In her final chapter, Kazez looks to psychology and economics to inform the philosopher parent. Drawing attention to the partiality of those studies, Kazez also points philosophy's failure to really notice parenthood until recently. The quest for the meaningful life shouldn't be reduced to happiness indexes or being able to reach universal philosophical truths. Parenthood is rich for the new experiences, even if destabilizing, it provides. Kazez reclaims Nussbaum's concept of fragility to show how parenthood makes growth, openness, and transcendence possible. Parenthood is duly promoted alongside other fulfilling lives, with moments of sorrow mixed in with elation and meaning.
The Philosopher Parent is a diverse, rich, funny, tragic, as well as analytical adventure in one of life's most challenging journeys. Kazez tackles ancient as well as contemporary questions by resting much on her use of the child as second self. But this, in turn, invites more questions. How are two unique parents to view the same child as their second self? And, what of my faults? How can the second self justify raising my child to be very different from me, a sort of second self that is a non-self? Finally, although it is easy to suggest more content to cover, and that The Philosopher Parent deals very well with the significant aspects of parenthood, the absence of a deeper treatment of emotions and new technologies is striking. As companions to Kazez's book, Matthew Pianalto's On Patience, Martha Nussbaum's Anger and Forgiveness, and Sherry Turkle's Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age philosophically equip parents and parents to be.
© 2017 Samuel LeBlanc
Interview
Question time
By Steven Poole
Steven Poole on Why We Hate Politics | Century | The Weight of Things
Sat 28 Apr 2007 06.35 EDT First published on Sat 28 Apr 2007 06.35 EDT
View more sharing options
Shares
0
Why We Hate Politics, by Colin Hay (Polity, £14.99)
Over the past decades, people in western democracies have been turning out to vote in ever smaller numbers, and giving ever more mistrustful opinions of politicians to pollsters. This is often diagnosed as a problem on the "demand" side, as Hay puts it - apathy or cynicism among the voters. But what if there really were something wrong with the "supply" side - with the way politicians themselves act? Hay's deeply interesting book is a splendid alchemy of detailed academic political science - with charts and subtle readings of data, and detailed critiques of the idea of "globalisation" and the simplifying assumptions of neoliberal economics - devised in a spirit of mischievous irony.
Politicians themselves, he points out, have been notably energetic in "depoliticising" large swathes of public life: privatising utilities, handing interest-rate control to the Bank of England, and so on. Thatcher and Reagan operated under the sway of "public choice theory", which argues that governments can't do much of anything very successfully, so why should the voters be blamed for agreeing? Indeed the stereotype of politicians as incompetent and corrupt buffoons, Hay argues, is extremely convenient for politicians themselves. So, I take the nice implicit paradox to be, if we hate the bastards, we have to try to believe they aren't bastards. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Century, by Alain Badiou (Polity, £15.99)
What did the 20th century think about itself? In this crunchy and colourful series of essays, adapted from lecture notes, Badiou dips in and out of historical moments and textual fragments to build a characteristically provocative kaleidoscopic diagnosis. Let us pass over the wistful nostalgia of the book's stupidest passage, about the "innovative" Mao Zedong, and recognise it as the author's permanent blind spot, for there are happier moments elsewhere: a scintillating chapter that moves from Xenophon to Celan ("After Celan there are certainly many more poems, but there are no more poems of the century"), and an argument about Freud as a great champion in the century's struggle against religion ("The terrifying thing is that sex may repel any donation of meaning, whereas the very existence of religion depends on its capacity to spiritualise the sexual relation, thereby forcing it to signify").
Sign up for Bookmarks: discover new books our weekly email
Read more
Badiou's sardonically compressed style is never less than pungent, and there are fruitful tangents on conceptual art, ideas of time, and pronouns in Brecht. For an ostensibly philosophical work, it is actually at its best in moments of close literary analysis, as evidenced in particular by a wonderful reading of a poem by Fernando Pessoa. Not the 20th century, of course; but a 20th century that rewards exploration.
The Weight of Things, by Jean Kazez (Blackwell, £9.99)
It may currently be a rather unfashionable conception of philosophy that it should help us to recognise what "the good life" is and how to lead it, but it's one with a long history. Kazez's warmly written book investigates the problem by comparing theories with actual lives: here are Aristotle and Epictetus (whose stoicism, she points out, is a forerunner of today's cognitive behavioural therapy); over there is Simeon Stylites, the famous Christian ascetic who stood on pillars for years. Here is Tolstoy, deciding that only God can give his life meaning; there is Nietzsche sniggering through his moustache. Kazez's amiable method is to imagine transhistorical conversations between thinkers, mixing in bits of contemporary ethical philosophers such as Peter Singer and anecdotes about friends, or characters from fiction, to illuminate certain moral dilemmas. The conclusion, that there are actually many forms of good life, is not earth-shattering, but the journey is lucid and humanely engaging.
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.
Thomasine, Sweden
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you