261. ABNORMAL NORMS - On Philosophy’s Futility In Our Continuing Decline
To say there are things of philosophical interest about Donald Trump’s unilateral kidnapping of Venezuela’s president and takeover of the country’s economic resources by force, is to perhaps expose the failings of philosophy.
No doubt there are fascinating questions we could spend hours debating about the nature of international law. How such a law is underwritten only by the international community’s continuing acceptance of it — there being no real authority over and above these laws of convention to enforce any international norms objectively — and, therefore, if the international community simply accepts Trump’s violations of those laws (as they have also recently done with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or the Israeli atrocities in Gaza) then it could be argued no violation has occurred. The so-called “law” is simply the rubber stamp of the powerful in a dog-eat-dog, might makes right world as perceived by the majority of powerful norm-makers.
The idea might be interesting. But it doesn’t protect the people of Venezuela from further American interference. Or the people of Colombia or Greenland (or anywhere on the map) from further unchecked American aggression. Nor, really, do the arguments which appeal instead to some stronger moral law. We might make a compelling philosophical case for the objective wrongness of America’s imperial foreign policy — just as many can convincingly prove the objective wrongness of genocide in Gaza, or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But do our fantastic arguments stop the objective wrongness from happening, or convince others that it must end? I am not necessarily convinced these days that it does. Moral battle lines are drawn every day, on seemingly every issue about which there is some disagreement, with perfectly compelling arguments given to make the case for or against any particular transgression. But they seem only to cleave us into teams pitted against one another intellectually than spur a genuinely open-minded conversation about right and wrong that leads to a progressive way forward. Whatever arguments may be provided to show why Trump is morally wrong to have done what he has done, will merely place the provider of those arguments into the “anti-Trump” camp. Meanwhile those who are “pro-Trump” will have arguments of their own. The idea that one side or the other’s arguments might be better or worse, or dare I say even correct, doesn’t come into it. Nor does the possibility that the “other” side will listen to those arguments and change. Their separate algorithms will likely mean the opposing arguments never even get heard.
While one might want to take that criticism and note that it is a criticism of the world we are living in, not of philosophy, I would counter by asking how many different intellectual camps you can think of in professional philosophy itself, and how often it is that thinkers from one camp actually find themselves moved by the arguments of the other? Petty disputes about what is “real” philosophy and what isn’t go on in university departments all the time. As do professional refusals to entertain particular questions for their not being “meaningful”. Ideological schisms about the very nature of certain problems being discussed are common. And these familiar academic battle-lines all share more in common with our divided and divisive social media landscape than they do with the idea of some genuine pursuit of “wisdom”. Philosophers dig their heels in and cover their ears to the other side just as quickly as any online agitator.
A philosophical case could easily be made for Trump’s act of international aggression to be considered a grave moral wrongdoing. Mainly because it so obviously is. But there will be other philosophers eager to make the contrasting case that it was right. One could imagine conferences and special journal issues all dedicated to the topic, ultimately achieving very little beyond fodder for new talks and articles.
I have long had a distaste for competitive academic debate competitions, precisely because they seem to trivialise the quest for truth by replacing it with the aim of simply winning an argument for your designated side. Philosophy, I always held, was somehow purer. Not simply a tool to win a debate but a tool to get to the truth. These days I am no longer so sure. The tool is still there for those who want it. But more and more it feels like those who use it properly are like Plato’s ignored navigator on a sinking ship of fools, enamoured by the power of ignorant strength.
So I’m not going to make a philosophical argument about Trump and Venezuela in this first post of 2026 and make the moral case for what should be intuitively obvious. Because if you’ve read this post this far, you likely already believe that Trump’s actions (all of them) were wrong. And if you are the sort of person defending his actions in Venezuela then you likely will never stumble upon this essay.
And it is this situation which makes me continue to ask questions about the value of philosophical discourse in a world that has seemingly forgotten that we are collaborating on a shared project of mutual existence, where we ought to be seeking answers for the collective good of all, rather than an atomistic battle of self-serving ideologies where only the loudest voice wins.
Author: DaN McKee (he/him)
If you liked this post and have enjoyed what I do here at Philosophy Unleashed - and have been doing every year since 2019 - and want to buy me a coffee or cool philosophy book as a gift to say thank you, feel free to send a small donation/tip my way here. You also should have commented on THIS POST, as the future of this website is currently undecided as I ask myself if it is worth it?
My book, ANARCHIST ATHEIST PUNK ROCK TEACHER, is out everywhere on paperback and eBook. You can order it direct from the publisher or from places like Amazon. Paperback or e-book. I also have a brand new short horror story in the new anthology, HARDCORE HORROR, also available to buy from Earth Island.
My academic paper - ‘An error of punishment defences in the context of schooling’ is out in the Journal of Philosophy of Education here.
My other book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE , from the publisher, and from all good booksellers, either in paperback or as an e-Book.
I also have a chapter in THIS BOOK on punk and anarchism.
Listen to me on The Independent Teacher podcast here. Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. Listen to me on the Philosophy Gets Schooled podcast here. Listen to me talk anarchism and wrestling here or anarchism and education here. For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com