Why David Brooks is a dishonest imbecile and he should be told to shut his trap.
So this gentleman, who has no clear credentials or authority, has for some reason decided to honor us by soiling the pages of the NYT with what can only be called absolute garbage. David Brooks, who probably wanted to be an academic but was too lazy to read went instead into journalism where he only had to talk. After all that is what by the dim lights of his, Socrates was engaged in doing. Today this generous soul, decided to give us his take on philosophy and its future.
Brooks’ approach to basic questions in metaethics is simply ominous. Why? Because it amounts to a disingenuously reductive presentation of a problem as a solution, which people like himself and his readers can find to be “nice”, as he say. In this guise, we end up condoning third rate populism which uses, in this case, Humean sentimentalism and its aftermath to support low grade forms of political discourse. There is a serious metaethical question and intuitionism or sentimentalism are questions within that debate, not “nice” answers.
The two most interesting features of this piece? 1) What a great example of begging the question it is. 2. Journalists should be asked to produce credentials to write about the topics they decide to write about. Anything less than that, is just an act of betrayal of the public trusts and intellectual dishonesty.
In reference to this completely idiotic approach to ethics, I would very much like to ask Mr. Brooks if he is willing to say that the proscription of genocide is just a matter of taste. And on what grounds is that we will condemn the inclination of people who happen to quite enjoy genocide if we decide to do so.
MJG