It's OK to Read Anyone

Even bad people!

I’m always baffled by academics who aim to silence rather than refute opposing viewpoints—it seems so anti-intellectual! I trust my readers, armed with good arguments, to avoid being fooled into appalling views—at least, more than I trust socially dominant groups to accurately identify which views truly are appalling. That’s the case for free inquiry in a nutshell, and I think one would be hard pressed to justify the institutions of academia without this basic faith in the epistemic superiority of reason over conformity to raw social power and influence.

Personally, this commitment to inquiry is much more foundational to my values (and associated moral emotions)¹ than any first-order conclusions that reasoning might lead me to (such as utilitarianism). I’m interested in being part of a diverse community of inquirers who all share this core procedural commitment to free inquiry. I think that’s what academia ought to be. So it’s always disappointing when other philosophers reveal that they don’t share this commitment.

Censorship-adjacent behavior (e.g., social pressure on your colleagues to avoid intellectual engagement with a target of cancellation) strikes me as deeply contrary to academic values. When I was a young’un, I was taught that philosophers assess arguments, not people.² Even Hitler might have offered a good argument for vegetarianism, in which case you can assess that argument’s merits without any implication that you’re thereby a card-carrying member of his political party. The ability and willingness to decouple message from messenger, and engage in this apolitical intellectual process³ is, to my mind, the essential feature that distinguishes moral philosophers from activists and partisan hacks. We’re interested in truth-seeking and assessing arguments on their merits, not the naive instrumentalist promotion of our political ends through the raw exercise of social power.

The author could be an ax-murderer for all I care. It’s the arguments that matter.

The Epistemic Challenge to Moralistic Cancellation

Here’s a very simple argument against cancellation—understood to mean a total intellectual boycott of an individual for their sins.⁴ Suppose that a target of cancellation makes a good argument one day, and you happen to stumble across it. What are you supposed to do? Pluck out your eyes? The options seem to be:

(1) Pretend that the argument does not exist — i.e., intellectually hobble yourself.

(2) Pick up the argument without citing or acknowledging its source — i.e., violate academic integrity. Or:

(3) Feel free to consider / engage with the argument, no matter its author — i.e., ignore the boycott.

My claim: (3) is an intellectually better response than either (1) or (2). Intellectuals should ignore moralistic boycotts and engage, honestly and openly, with interesting ideas no matter their source.⁵

Why I recommend Hanania’s substack

Some people have objected to the fact that Richard Hanania’s newsletter is included in my list of ‘recommended’ substacks. (David Thorstad apparently finds it “concerning”,⁶ and decries anyone finding “an excuse for engagement.” I fundamentally reject his anti-intellectual assumption that engaging with the ideas of people we sufficiently deeply disagree with is wrong by default or in need of “excuse”!)⁷

Apparently, Hanania pseudonymously wrote some genuinely awful (racist, sexist, etc.) stuff in his early 20s, over a decade ago. I haven’t read (or recommended) that tripe, and don’t plan to. But I also don’t see it as relevant to assessing the quality of his current substack — the text that I do read and recommend.

I disagree with plenty that Hanania writes, and would not join his political party. (He supports Trump as a “lesser evil”, which seems clearly mistaken to me—but I appreciated reading his argument, even though I disagreed with it.) In general, I think it’s valuable to read the best arguments from people with very different perspectives than ourselves and those we’re usually surrounded by, and Hanania seems the most intelligent and interesting social conservative that I’ve come across to date.⁸ (Other suggestions welcome.)

Below the paywall, I’ll share ten of the posts that I personally found most worth reading and thinking about. (It’s nothing scandalous—unlike my last one—I’d just like to provide some bonus content to my paid subscribers, and don’t mind if this extra content is read by few.) Since the paywall also hides the comments section, feel free to leave a comment on this accompanying Substack Note instead. [Update: I’ve also reposted the more substantive footnotes there, if the paywall blocks you from seeing them here.]

As you can see (if you subscribe), a lot of this stuff is both (i) interesting and worth considering, even when we disagree with it; and (ii) unlike anything I’d ever hear from anyone in my academic bubble. That seems pretty valuable to me! I expect it could be valuable to many of my colleagues and readers, too. So, that’s why I recommend Hanania’s substack.