Category: Philosophy

Posted on

Want to Get Rich? Major in Philosophy!

By Jim Spiegel

A recent PayScale Inc. study on college graduates across the disciplines revealed some surprising facts about the earning power of a Philosophy degree.  Fifty different bachelors’ degrees were compared in terms of average incomes for recent graduates and for those a decade after graduation.  The study found that the highest average percentage of salary increase is achieved, that’s right, by Philosophy majors—a whopping 103.5%.  In terms of raw numbers, Philosophy majors’ average salary upon graduation is $40,000, and ten years later the average jumps to $81,000.  And when average salaries in the 75th and 90th percentiles of all majors are compared, Philosophy graduates are actually near the top—neck and neck with electrical engineers and computer scientists—averaging $168,000 in the latter case.  Hard to believe?  Perhaps.  But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things.

So much, then, for the tired cliché:  What can you do with a Philosophy major?  Evidently a lot, even in terms of income.  As I reflected on this data—which I must admit, surprised even me, though probably not as much as most folks—I did a mental inventory of my own former students whose careers I’ve monitored over the years.  These impressive numbers began to make more sense, even on my anecdotal scan:  Several of my former students are attorneys, thriving financially while (I like to think) helping to redeem a field which, well, needs some redemption.  Some are college professors like me, enjoying the best job in the world while making a decent living.  Others work in publishing, as marketers, editors, and, in one instance, as a literary agent.  A few others started their own businesses and are doing quite well, thank you, beating the business majors at their own game.  All of these folks and others like them drive the numbers up, averaged against the income of other Philosophy majors who now serve as pastors, missionaries, or non-profiters—whose income is more modest but whose vocation is no less rewarding, all things considered. 

How to make sense of this?  Why would a Philosophy major, of all things, be so lucrative over the long haul?  Again, just a little reflection explains what should have been more obvious.  In Philosophy one develops several skills which are crucial for success in whatever field one ultimately chooses to pursue:  critical thinking, conceptual analysis, problem-solving, and skills in oral and written expression.  Try to think of a career in which excelling in these areas will not put one at a distinct advantage over one’s peers.  Add to this the fact that Philosophy majors tend to be more morally circumspect than most, having been trained in the art of moral-decision making and especially encouraged to be persons of integrity.  Put these ingredients together and you have a pretty good recipe for success and even leadership in most fields.

So the next time you hear someone insinuate the impracticality of a Philosophy major from a career standpoint, you can set them straight.  You might even dare to inform them that if they really want to make the big money, then they should be a Philosophy major!

Posted on

Faith, Film, and Philosophy

By Jim Spiegel

The other day I received some good news from one of my publishers, InterVarsity Press.  The book I co-edited with Doug Geivett last year, Faith, Film, and Philosophy, is going into a second printing.  This is gratifying because it means the book is selling at a decent clip.  The responses of our readers are more important than sales, of course, but it’s always nice to know that your book is not wasting your publisher’s efforts and expenses.  The folks at IVP, especially Andy LePeau and Gary Deddo, believed in this project from the outset, and Doug and I are indebted to them for getting behind our vision for the book.  It feels good to see that support rewarded.

In case you’re not familiar with Faith, Film, and Philosophy, the book features essays by fourteen philosophers (including Doug and myself), each which discusses a film (or two or more) from a Christian perspective.  The films discussed include dramas, comedies, documentaries, and horror films—classic and contemporary, domestic and foreign.  And the philosophical issues explored range across many of the major areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, and philosophy of religion.  Contributors include James Sennett (on Citizen Kane), David Hunt (on The Matrix), Ron Tacelli (on horror films), Win Corduan (on Hong Kong films), and Dallas Willard (on American Beauty, Cider House Rules, and Pleasantville).

Doug has put together a website featuring more information about the book and other content related to film and philosophy:  http://www.faith-film-philosophy.com/.  When I complete work on my current project—a Philosophy introductory text—I’ll have more time to contribute content to that website, such as film reviews.  But Doug already has some interesting stuff posted.  I recommend checking out Doug’s blog as well.

Posted on

Two Approaches to the Problem of Evil

By Jim Spiegel

One of the most challenging issues in the philosophy of religion is the problem of evil.  Put simply, the problem concerns the difficulty of reconciling the reality of evil—from immoral behaviors to diseases and natural disasters—with the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God.  If God is almighty, then he can prevent evil, and if God is morally perfect, then presumably he would wantto prevent it.  Yet evil exists—in massive doses, in fact.  On its face, then, the problem amounts to evidence against theism, at least as traditionally construed.  One way out would be to deny God is omnipotent, as Harold Kushner essentially does in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.  Another route would be to surrender belief in God’s goodness.  But these approaches contradict the biblical portrait of God.  So, it seems, the theist is in a fix.

Since the ancient philosopher Epicurus first posed the evidential problem of evil, theists have proposed many ways of eluding its logic by contriving “theodicies”—explanations as to why God would permit sin and suffering in this world.  Two of the most well-worn among these are the “free will theodicy” and the “soul-making theodicy.”  Both of these aim to deny the premise that God would not want to allow evil.  Each explains God’s permission of evil in terms of some greater goods that God wanted to achieve in this world. 

According to the free will theodicy the greater goods God desired were the various goods that depend upon human freedom, such as genuine relationships and moral qualities.  But, of course, we have misused our freedom and, well, now things are a mess.  But the risk, so to speak, was worth it, or so say defenders of the free will theodicy.  According to the soul-making theodicy, the greater goods God aims to achieve by permitting evil is higher or “second-order” virtues which can only be displayed in response to evil.  For example, forgiveness requires sin to forgive, perseverance demands difficulty to overcome, and so on.  Such traits as forgiveness, perseverance, patience, compassion, mercy, etc. are good and beautiful virtues, and well worth the price of evil to achieve.  Or so say proponents of the soul-making theodicy.

I think both of these theodicies are helpful in dealing with the problem of evil.  But is either one preferable to or more helpful than the other?  This question has been occupying my mind a bit lately, as I will be giving a presentation on it at next week’s national meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in Providence, Rhode Island, which will be held at the Rhode Island Convention Center.  (Once it is finished, I plan to post my paper on this blog.)  If you’ll be in the New England area from November 18-21, you might want to consider checking out this conference and hearing presentations by some leading lights in the world of Christian philosophy and theology.  It’s not too late to register.  And I also invite you to consider joining the EPS or its sister organization, the Evangelical Theological Society.  In each case, membership is inexpensive and includes a subscription to the society’s journal (Philosophia Christi or the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society).

Posted on

An Argument Against Gay Marriage

By Jim Spiegel

One of the more divisive moral-political issues of our time is gay marriage.  Conservative Christians oppose gay marriage and are often criticized because their only reasons for doing so are biblical in nature.  This rankles some people who complain that Christians want their theological views to be the foundation for civil laws.  (Of course, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the foundation of many of our laws, but this fact seems lost on lots of folks these days.)

For a long time I was convinced that the only conclusive arguments against gay marriage are theological.  Many have proposed philosophical arguments against gay marriage—typically utilitarian in nature—but these tend to be weak, essentially useful only as supplements to arguments from Scripture.  So I set myself to the task of coming up with a strong philosophical argument (preferably non-utilitarian in nature).  I think I might have accomplished just this with an argument which essentially claims that gay marriage is unjust.  Here it is, for your perusal:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have shared this argument with many of my friends and colleagues, and the criticisms have consistently missed the point—suggesting, for example, that the argument assumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation (which it does not) or that it implies a complete denial of the civil rights of homosexuals (which, again, it does not).  Still others have made the more subtle mistake of interpreting me as saying that gay marriage implies a denial of all value of heterosexual unions.  Clearly, the argument does no such thing.  The whole point of the argument concerns the special value of traditional marriage.

At any rate, the lack of strong objections has only strengthened my conviction that the argument is sound.  Now I am curious if anyone can muster a decent criticism (without lapsing into ad hominems, emotional pleas, and other fallacies).  I am also curious as to how many of you, like me, find the argument persuasive.