A.C. Grayling CBE MA DPhil is the Principal and Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University London and a Supernumerary Fellow at St Anne's College, Oxford. He has authored over thirty books on philosophy, biography, and the history of ideas, and has written columns for The Guardian, The Times, and Prospect Magazine. He has twice judged The Booker Prize, serving as Chair in 2014. Grayling is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Society of Literature, Vice President of Humanists UK, Patron of the Defence Humanists, Honorary Associate of the Secular Society, and Patron of Dignity in Dying. In this interview, I pick his brain on the relevance of philosophy, his approach to writing, his passion for humanism over religion, and much more.
Date- Friday, May 24, 2024
Location- Carriageworks Media Room
In this increasingly technological age with the prevalence of artificial intelligence, how does philosophy stay relevant for an everyday person?
Philosophy is always relevant because it involves digging up assumptions that we make and on which we live, asking questions about the point of what we're doing and the value of what we're doing. The understanding is the great final step after accumulating knowledge. you can accumulate your knowledge, but making sense of that knowledge, understanding it, and knowing how to put it to work- that’s the key thing. That's what philosophy seeks to do. “Look at the assumptions, look at the consequences. Try to be clear and to understand at any time in history, in any society, no matter what the challenges are, that is always going to be an important thing to do.
Your latest book “Who Owns the Moon” demonstrates a pragmatic way to look at international policy, and ethics, combined with your philosophical expertise to advocate for a collective approach to space exploration and resource utilisation. That's a very unique topic. How do you how do you decide which subject matters to approach and what inspires you to write about certain topics?
Looking ahead, the next big challenge after climate change is humanity's expansion into space, driven by economic motives and significant investments with expectations of profit. This expansion will lead to rivalry and competition, which could threaten conflict. Lots of money has already been invested—lots of expectations about big profits.
So, we have to think in advance about how, as humankind goes to the moon, goes to the asteroids, eventually to Mars, and maybe further, you have to think about how that's going to be organised. Currently, there is only a very weak and outdated regulatory framework, The United Nations 1967 Life Space Treaty. This only prevents the militarisation of the Moon but otherwise refers to it as Terra nullius, allowing unregulated activities, akin to a Wild West scenario. Colonisation will lead to ownership and sovereignty claims, especially on the Moon and Mars, but there's no robust structure to govern these developments or resolve disputes.
At the moment we're just leaving it to private enterprise and to China to decide what happens in the future. By the way, India is a big player in this too. It has a successful space programme and it it has joined up with the other Artemis Accords countries, with the United States.
The Artemis Accords attempt to preempt international treaties by proposing a code of conduct, suggesting that "we'll all be very good chaps" and thus don't need a treaty. None of these countries want a UN treaty as it would interfere with commercial activities. This means the future of space will not be governed by principles of human rights, civil liberties, and international order, but by corporate practices, company contracts, and the authoritarian policies of countries like China. Consequently, space governance will develop from these seeds rather than from rational, mature international agreements.
What do you think is going to be the biggest challenge to human progress in the 21st century?
Almost everything that happens is multi-causal; individual events or situations can act as bottlenecks, derailing processes. For example, around 1200 BCE, Near Eastern civilizations collapsed due to disrupted trading patterns, crucially involving copper, akin to oil today. Our current global trading relations are similarly precarious and fragile. Potential triggers for a network collapse include expanding wars, a return of pandemic disease, or vulnerabilities of systems to nuclear power stations and airliners to AI hacking. Any one or combination of these could cause a catastrophe. Imagine a strike by oil tanker drivers in Australia: supermarket shelves would empty in days, potentially leading to social chaos and people resorting to extreme measures for essentials. What would people do? How would they behave? Would there be gangs of people breaking into other people's houses looking for tins of baked beans? Civilization is very thinly veiled, relying on everything functioning smoothly. Disruptions can lead to significant social unrest. Almost certainly however, hacking technologies or expanded warfare are the most likely catalysts.
You mentioned climate change. And I read this article that you wrote a while back, which was about how we need to make democracy work in the fight to save the planet. Since the time that you've written it, has there been any significant progress that you've seen for the fight to save the planet within democratic systems?
No! I think our democracies are even more vulnerable than they were at the time. And progress on climate change is slower than it needs to be. Warming is accelerating, with efforts to keep it below 2°C diminishing. We're already seeing climate impacts like wildfires and floods, making it too late for prevention; we must now focus on mitigation and management. The next few years are crucial. If Trump returns, it would be detrimental. Most of the self-identifying democratic governments with Right-wing parties, such as those led by Orbán, Modi, and the UK's Conservative Party (until July), follow Steve Bannon's playbook—shrinking the state, lowering taxes, combating immigration, and reversing progressive measures from the past 70 years.
People of my generation have experienced an unusually long period of relative peace and prosperity, which is not the global norm. Historically, the world faces continuous threats, challenges, and conflicts. “We are still in the kindergarten as a species”. Humanity still behaves immaturely, failing to address issues rationally.
To improve democracies, we need clearer constitutions, proportional representation, and well-defined limits on government powers, ensuring governments serve the people, not political parties. Currently, democracies suffer from constant politicking rather than effective governance. Addressing this is essential for progress in both climate action and democratic stability.
Bleak but very true. It's interesting that you mentioned authoritarian governments can handle climate change more effectively. China, for example, is now a leader in green technology. This could prompt other countries to accelerate their own green manufacturing to avoid reliance on Chinese imports.
Yes, that is a good point.
What responsibilities do you think academics and intellectuals should have when they're presenting or when they're interacting with the media and public?
1st and primary responsibility is to say the truth. And we've seen far too little of that. Because politicians are in politics as a career, so they're protecting themselves and their re-election possibilities. Governments are formed by political parties and political parties want to always present the best faith. They want to cover up their mistakes, not let people know what their plans are. So in consequence, the amount of misinformation that comes out of governments and political parties and politicians mouths is huge. The first duty should be to to truth and to honesty. For example, if people could be elected to Parliament only for one term, so they can't make a career of it and the party can't force them to vote for their party lying against their conscience, then they would speak the truth.Then they would act in the interests of the people who elected them.
But at the moment the great problem is everybody's trying to spin things and cover things up and only tell part of the truth or or even to just lie. And this distorts the public conversation, and it makes it very difficult for people to know what to believe or what to think and to go back to that point about the Bannon playful? Currently, the focus on spin and partial truths distorts public discourse, making it difficult for people to know what to believe. Steve Bannon's strategy of "flooding the zone with shit" creates confusion and chaos, benefiting those who profit politically or financially from such disorder. Trump and Boris Johnson are prime examples of this approach, exacerbating the problem.
You are a huge advocate for humanism over religion. Do you think it’s possible for them to coexist harmoniously?
Yes, humanism and religion can coexist harmoniously if religions remain private and refrain from interfering in government and public policy or imposing their beliefs on others. So if it were an entirely private personal matter, hmm, fine. Then they can get along with humanism. But the truth of the matter is most religions by their nature tend to be aggressive and proselytizing, creating conflicts. With one or two honourable exceptions, Most of the major religions, Islam and all different forms, Christianity and even now we see in India, Hinduism, they tend to be rather aggressive because. No rational person at the age of 20, encountering a religious text like the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Quran for the first time, would find it logically coherent and obviously right. Belief in religion often stems from being indoctrinated before reaching an age of reason. Religions often perpetuate themselves through upbringing, making it difficult for individuals to reason out of beliefs they weren't reasoned into. Humanism, on the other hand, advocates treating people with generosity, respect, and sympathy unless they behave poorly. As Emerson, the Great American essays to the 19th century, suggested,’We should give other people the same advantage that we give a painting- the advantage of a good light’. You would never look at the painting in the dark. Thus, we should see others in the best light possible, promoting a more harmonious coexistence.
Is that also not at the core of a lot of religions, would you say it’s the people that misconstrue religion and make it intolerable? What is to stop humanism from encountering the same fate?
It’s a very standard argument that it's people who distort religion, not religion itself. Well, if you look into it, fundamentalists and purists are the people who stick closest to the original texts and doctrines. Religions often adapt and evolve over time, with many followers selectively interpreting and applying their texts. While some adhere strictly to original doctrines, others cherry-pick, disregarding certain teachings while embracing others. For example, it says in the Bible you should ‘stone gays to death’ or ‘stone people to death if they don't go to church on the Sabbath’ and people will say ‘oh we won't do but this bit we will follow’. This selective approach allows religions to remain relevant in society but can lead to inconsistencies and hypocrisy. However, attributing religious conflicts solely to human interpretation overlooks inherent elements within religions themselves.
The way religions survive in society is by being very dishonest because they don't cling to their texts, but the fundamentalists do cling to the text. They're the ones who, as a result, tend to kill other people because they don't agree with them. So, I'm not so sure that it's just the people who distort the religion. It's in the DNA of the religion itself. In contrast, humanism emphasizes universal values rooted in empathy, understanding, and a shared sense of humanity, promoting positive relationships and inclusivity. So our best understanding of human nature and the human condition, human frailty, human difficulty, the fact that lives are full of pain and sorrow as well as of joy should make us feel that we are all a part of the same family.
Who are the philosophers that you most look up to and the ones who have influenced your way of thinking?
Some philosophers who influenced me include Aristotle, Emmanuel Kant, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell. I look up to all of them in several different ways and for different reasons. So for example, in addition to doing technical work in philosophy, Russell also did a lot of public and social philosophising.
Is there any philosophical idea or theory that you weren't on board with at the start of your career, but through your experiences, now understand it a lot more?
My interest in philosophy has certainly evolved over time, leading me to view central problems in a different light as I've engaged with new ideas. Evolving views and learning are essential for avoiding stagnation. In terms of social philosophy and ethics, I've progressively leaned towards the left politically. This shift stems from a heightened awareness of inequality and injustice, particularly the staggering wealth disparities in the world. The concept of billions versus millions is mind-boggling, exemplified by figures like Jeff Bezos whose wealth grows exponentially. Such extreme wealth alongside pervasive poverty raises moral questions about societal fairness and the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources to prevent political instability
To conceptualise what these wealth differentials mean, try to articulate the difference between a million and a billion dollars. Mathematically you can describe it but another way of looking at it is that 1 million seconds is 2 weeks and 1 billion seconds is 32 years. I'm not against rich people, but rather against wealth resulting from sequestering, hoovering it up and taking it away from other people, who are therefore struggling and commiserating. There are people who live in conspicuous luxury, and there are people sleeping on the street underneath their windows. How can that be right? Such extreme wealth alongside pervasive poverty raises moral questions about societal fairness and the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources to prevent political instability.
I was very interested in the fact that you were a judge for The Booker Prize. In your time judging the books, which has been your personal favourite book? I believe you have to read what, like, 150 books (You cannot pick ones that won)?
Yeah. Well, it's terribly hard to say. Out of 150 books, there are going to be 50, which are really good. Out of those fifty books, maybe 25 of them are real contenders. And you have to make a long list of about 16. Then you're gonna make a short list of five or six, and then you're gonna choose 1.
Some books reveal their brilliance gradually, requiring multiple readings to appreciate fully. Recent reads that left a strong impression include Andrew Higgins' "Caledonian Road" and Richard Flanagan's memoir "Question 7." While research reading occupies much of my time, I also find pleasure in revisiting classics like Jane Austen, Robert Musil's "The Man Without Qualities" and Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain." Returning to these timeless works feels like cleansing the palate between literary courses, refreshing and invigorating. It's like enjoying a sorbet to cleanse the palate during a multi-course meal, preparing the mind for new literary experiences.
My final question to you is actually if you have any advice for current philosophy students or students at our university who want to consider a career in philosophy, what advice would you have for them?
Pursuing a career in philosophy can be challenging due to limited university positions. However, there's increasing opportunity to teach philosophy in schools. Importantly, studying philosophy isn't solely for becoming a lecturer. Employers across various fields—education, law, journalism, business, finance, civil service, politics, and creative industries—highly value philosophy graduates for their ability to manage ideas, think clearly, and offer broad perspectives. Philosophy encompasses a range of disciplines, including epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy, and the history of ideas. As a result, philosophy graduates are well-equipped to adapt, learn, and thrive in diverse careers, making them highly desirable in the job market.
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me, I really appreciate it and I’m sure your words will strongly resonate with our students.
Thank you!
