Brian Leiter

by Little Miss Attila on March 17, 2011

is the law and philosophy prof who wrote:

At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified . . .

He has, quite properly, been getting his ass handed to him, mostly by fellow academics. The latest whupping came from Ann Althouse, and references an earlier post wherein she use sarcasm on him.

Althouse, again:

It’s all clearly visible, what he said and what I said. Judge for yourself. You can call it an “inflammatory hatchet job.” I call it blogging. Effective blogging.

Leiter’s first effort at a response to me is that he and I “have had very pleasant, collegial interactions in Austin and Madison in the last few years.” Mmm, yeah. I sought him out once when I was in Austin after we’d been having a blog feud. You know, the one where I said “Nerd wants love” — Leiter being the nerd — and call him a “jackass” in the comments. He deserved it, but I made peace, in person, on his territory, and he’s a fine, mild-mannered man in person. He defended sharp, sarcastic writing in those days. If I remember correctly, he portrayed it as Nietzschean. Maybe he doesn’t do that anymore. I can’t imagine Nietzsche saying something bold and then weighing it down with updates to say that some lady hacked him with a hatchet and caused inflammation. (Ooh! Look at the swelling!)

After he gets past the dweeby “I thought you were my friend” argument, he attempts some philosophizing — about justifying violence “at some point,” which nearly everyone agrees with. He also says: ” Collective bargaining is, per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a human right.” In Leiter’s philosophical mind, it seems that ending collecting bargaining rights for public employees might be sufficient justification for violence. Now, I know, and it’s obvious in my original post (the one that caused that awful swelling) that he stands aloof observing the possible arguments other people might make. And he’s certainly right that I saw him in light of my experience with “law professors being result-oriented in their scholarship.” He thinks, given this debased experience of mine, that I “can not understand that recent events pose genuine questions for people of a philosophical cast of mind.” You really think I can’t understand that? No, I just see people, human beings everywhere, not disembodied thoughts. I understand the kind of people who like to think that their thoughts developed in the abstract and not inside the bodies of real individuals with desires and self-interests, including the interest in walking back from an ugly-looking blog post.

Now, go put some ice on that.

Others who have had their way with Leiter include Glenn Reynolds, James Taranto, and Eugene Volokh.

And then, there was this, from Kenneth Anderson:

The eminent philosopher and law professor Brian Leiter, of the University of Chicago Law School, posts this comment on his philosophy blog . . ..

Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison … At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke. (emph. added)

I humbly tug my academic forelock before Professor Leiter, whose greater brains and greater virtue I’ll cheerfully concede upfront. Still, the rapidity with which Professor Leiter reaches, however coyly or indirectly or teasingly or hintingly, to justifications, or thinking this suddenly would be a good moment for talking about justifications, for political violence did put me in mind of this news item from the Onion of several years ago.

In Retrospect, I Guess We Might Have Resorted To Cannibalism A Bit Early

I have no idea how long we’d been marooned when we started edging toward Jerry. Twenty, thirty minutes, time has little meaning when you’re in a situation like that. It wasn’t a spoken decision, either. We just all looked at each other and knew something had to be done.

It might have been an animal act, but it had a certain logic. Jerry lived alone and had nobody special in his life–no kids, no wife or girlfriend, and his parents had died a long time ago. And, most important, he was the biggest. We figured there was enough meat on him to keep the rest of us alive for days, maybe weeks.

Peter held him down while I tore at his forearm with my teeth. Not surprisingly, Jerry resisted. He struggled ferociously and shouted, “Hey, what the hell are you doing?” But he knew exactly what we were doing: We were doing whatever it took to survive.

Eventually, we were able to knock Jerry out. And, as for what we did next, I’m sure you’ve read about it in the papers. Maybe it was savage. Maybe it was an animal act. But human teeth are pointed and sharp in front for a reason.

Besides, we had no way of knowing that, at that very moment, an Otis Elevator repairman was working to free us. We only knew that we were between floors, and that it had been more than five hours since we’d had lunch.

I feel somewhat the same about Professor Leiter’s call (purely in the philosophical abstract, you understand) to reconsider political violence — you know, this might be an appeal just a tad early in the saga of criminal and illegitimate and unjust oppression. I leave it to Professor Leiter to say definitively, but I wonder if Locke might not also agree.

David Bernstein gave us this:

An anonymous source tells me that the first meeting of Lawprofs Exploring their Interest in Terrorism (or other forms of violence) for Employee Rights will be held at the University of Chicago faculty dining room on Monday. Don’t know the password, though.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

LeiterThanAir March 18, 2011 at 8:57 am

Leiter has failed upward quite well, earning a law degree, and apparently never practicing law, then earning a PhD in philosophy so he can teach at a law school (while calling himself a philosopher), carving out a niche as a liberal defender of Nietszche, and ranking law schools and philosophy departments as his major claim to fame. No wonder he lashes out with violent fantasies. No one could possibly take him seriously.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: