Why Everything Leads to Philosophy

Hello and welcome to Rewilding Philosophy, a newsletter dedicated to practical (eco-)philosophy for multispecies conviviality. A warm welcome to  new subscribers—I'm thrilled to have you on board. And for those celebrating Easter 🐇, happy Easter, may you find many eggs.

---

To win true freedom, you must be a slave to philosophy. Epicurus.

In times of the metacrisis, it seems like everything has become a philosophical question. 

There is a game demonstrating that all roads lead to philosophy. When clicking on the first link in the main text of an English Wikipedia article and repeating the process for subsequent articles, you are eventually led to the Philosophy article. In February 2016, this pattern held true for 97% of all Wikipedia articles, an increase from 94.52% in 2011.

Yet, beyond the statistical wisdom of Wikipedia, the reason everything seems to lead to philosophy is rooted in the realization that most facets of our lives are entangled with harmful practices and have thus become imbued with moral significance. Whether it's choosing to fly to the US to visit friends, accepting a job at a corporate giant like Amazon, opting for a car over public transport or a bike, or determining how warm to keep our homes in winter, each action now carries moral weight.

A moral decision involves weighing considerations of right versus wrong, good versus bad, or ethical versus unethical actions. These decisions often stem from moral principles, values, or beliefs that shape behavior and influence judgments about what is morally acceptable or unacceptable. Moral decision-making entails assessing the consequences of our actions, considering the rights and interests of others, and reflecting on ethical principles such as fairness, justice, honesty, compassion, and integrity.

For me, one of the biggest decisions I am trying to make at the moment is whether to visit dear friends in the US this year. I used to fly there a couple of times annually without a care in the world. Back then, when I wasn't aware of the environmental impact of air travel, and then, back then, when I prioritized my own desires over planetary concerns. I'd just hop on a flight - as they say. Now, it has become this thing that hovers over me. I've extensively written about this here and here, and for those familiar with my writing, it's clear that I find the narrow focus on CO2 emissions inadequate.  While CO2 emissions are undoubtedly significant, they only scratch the surface of what truly matters, which doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't matter. It also matters. That's why I am not taking that decision lightly. I don't think there is an easy answer. And I found that the only thing to make sense of these challenges is philosophy-ing, which brings me back to the point: 

In an ideal world, just living and getting on with our lives would not be a moral decision. In an ideal world, our actions would align with overarching principles and societal norms, mitigating the need for constant ethical introspection. In an ideal world, our actions would make sense within a greater narrative; guiding principles from this greater narrative would let us know, for example, that it's ok to eat animals sometimes. We'd understand the animals in their context and make sure not to diminish the numbers. These things wouldn't have to be negotiated within ourselves, but they'd be habits of society. In an ideal world, flying is not a moral question because it's energy neutral - our technology would be aligned with our socialecological realities. 

However, we have developed societal habits that often lead to destructive consequences for our socioecological systems. While at one point in our history those habits made sense given the then circumstances, they now destroy habitats, forstering competition and inequality. Our systems are designed in a way that supports those habits.

I like to talk about societal habits to point out that the systems we have constructed and the world we live in are not the result of a malevolent elite but rather collective patterns of behavior that no longer serve us. Just like some of us smoke or eat too many chips. We have created societal habits that are equal to eating potato chips all day. The bad thing about habits is that they can be difficult to break. We notice this on an individual level. On a societal level, it's a whole new order of things. The good thing about habits is that they can be broken, and new ones can emerge. More on that soon. 

What I want to talk about now is that, let's be honest, living like that - in a world in which everything has become an ethical choice - can be overwhelming and mega exhausting. It seems like everything we do makes us complicit in the destruction that none of us want. What a mess-up: we have created societal habits that create conditions that don't serve society. And when I say society, I include the entangled, more-than-human beings who are always already an inherent part of our society. 

Because of that, many of us experience a constant dissonance, torn between the desire to maintain the status quo and the recognition that change is imperative. Johnson Rowson recently wrote,

"Perhaps the most pervasive source of dissonance arises in those who enjoy day-to-day life, know that the world has made extraordinary progress, and want to carry on with life as it is, and yet sense that everything has to change, and probably will." And continues, "We are therefore in constant disagreement with the world, out of accord, out of kilter.

In these times, where entanglements become apparent and our own complicity becomes undeniable, we can either continue business as usual, hope for the best, and that someone else will solve it. Or we begin to actively seek solutions to improve our circumstances. The latter inevitably leads us to ethical questions, which are inherently philosophical in nature. That's why all roads lead to philosophy and why - despite its bad reputation - philosophy may be more important than ever.