If a Democratic lawmaker and her husband are gunned down, it’s an isolated incident carried out by a lone wolf.

If a right-wing activist is gunned down, it’s part of a coordinated effort by the radical left to incite violence.

If a gunman murders nineteen children at an elementary school, it’s disgusting to politicize the tragedy by talking about gun control.

If a Republican presidential candidate is targeted in an assassination attempt, it’s fair to blame it on left-wing rhetoric before the shooter has even been identified.

If a Christian Nationalist shoots up a synagogue, his values don’t reflect Christianity as a whole.

If a transgender woman shoots up a Catholic school, it’s because the entire LGBTQ community is conspiring to destroy Christianity. RuPaul probably ordered the hit.

If a man with a knife is arrested a block away from the home of a conservative Supreme Court justice, it’s a heinous act brought on by the radical feminist movement’s anger toward him.

If a man nearly beats the husband of a liberal Speaker of the House to death with a hammer, it’s a running joke for the next three years.

If a man shoots a Democratic congresswoman, he’s a mentally disturbed individual.

If a man shoots a Republican congressman, it’s because Bernie Sanders brainwashed him and turned him into a sleeper agent who is activated by the phrase “tax cut.”

If a mentally ill Black man fatally stabs a woman riding the light rail, it’s a “nationwide failure” on the part of Democrats.

If an Islamophobic white man fatally stabs two people riding the light rail, there’s no reason to think Republicans have done anything in the past twenty-five years to foment hatred of Muslims. Some people just wake up one morning hating entire groups of people.

If a white man is murdered by a sniper, anyone who so much as suggests that the killer’s motive may have been related to comments the victim made in the past should be fired from their job, put on a watch list, and doxxed. How dare they say anything that could be interpreted as being critical of the deceased?

If a Black man is murdered by the police, anyone digging up dirt on the victim to explain why his death was justified—like crimes he committed twenty years ago, or claiming he actually overdosed—is just laying out the facts.

If a Democratic governor talks about punching people in the mouth, he is obviously filled with insatiable bloodlust.

If a Republican president talks about punching people in the mouth, you’re the violent one for thinking he was being serious.

If a Democratic president is moved to tears by violence, he’s faking it.

If a Republican president repeatedly calls for violence, it’s just because he’s so full of love for America.

If a congresswoman says “We have to fight” while speaking at a rally about government accountability, she didn’t mean “fight” as in “apply sustained political pressure,” she meant “fight” as in “stab those bureaucrats until they release their data.”

If a Republican president says “We have to fight” to a group of armed rioters after months of repeatedly claiming an election has been stolen, he didn’t mean “fight” as in “storm the Capitol,” he meant “fight” as in the Beastie Boys’ lyrics “fight for your right to paaaar-tay.”

If a Democrat calls Republicans “fascists,” he basically just signed their death warrants.

If a Republican calls Democrats “Marxists,” or “the enemy from within,” or “vermin,” or “human scum,” he’s just trying to fire up the crowd.

If a social media addicted billionaire says “The left is the party murder,” it’s an indisputable fact.

If a think tank founded by the Koch brothers combs through the data and concludes that right-wing terrorism is responsible for far more deaths than left-wing terrorism, they were probably just cherry-picking.

All political violence is wrong.

But some political violence is more wrong than others.

By philosopher Steven M. Cahn:

(1) Assume that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent Demon who created the world.
(2) If the Demon exists, then there would be no goodness in the world.
(3) But there is goodness in the world.
(4) Therefore, the Demon does not exist.

A demonist who wants to deny (4) would need to deny (1), (2), or (3). No demonist would question (1), and it’s difficult to deny (3), but we can escape (2) only by claiming that the world’s good is somehow necessary, that every good in the world is logically needed in order for this to be the worst world that the Demon could have created.

This is the familiar “problem of evil” turned on its head. The notion that all the world’s good (sunsets, Socrates’ free will) is necessary to create maximum evil is just as improbable as that all the world’s evil (bubonic plague, Hitler’s free will) is needed to create maximum good. Unless demonists or theists can produce further evidence in favor of their positions, “the reasonable conclusion is that neither the Demon nor God exists.”

(Steven M. Cahn, “Cacodaemony,” Analysis 37:2 [January 1977], 69-73.)

“Basically, the parts of my brain that tell my mouth how to produce speech are gradually shutting down. Over time my speech is likely to worsen, and eventually I may not be able to speak at all.”

That is John Corvino, professor of philosophy (and former dean of the honors college) at Wayne State University, in a public social media post in which he shares that he was diagnosed with an unusual neurodegenerative disorder, Primary Progressive Apraxia Of Speech (PPAOS), which is resulting from FrontoTemporal Degeneration (FTD) in the right front lobe of his brain.

The problem was discovered by a PET scan earlier this year.

Here’s how he describes the condition:

Basically, the parts of my brain that tell my mouth how to produce speech are gradually shutting down. Over time my speech is likely to worsen, and eventually I may not be able to speak at all. It’s not the more common Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA, what Bruce Willis has); I have no trouble with word recall or comprehension. It’s a motor-speech problem, not a language problem, fortunately. Even when I speak relatively normally, as I often can, it takes considerable concentration to produce smooth speech. The best I can describe it is that it feels like I’m saying tongue twisters, even when I’m saying things that should be easy for me to say. And that concentration leaves little bandwidth for figuring out what to say, so I sometimes come across as reticent and inarticulate.

It is hard to think of another philosopher of this era who has so consistently and effectively used his voice to bring philosophy to the public, in a principled manner and as a force for good, as John Corvino.

Corvino is known for his work in ethics and social and political philosophy, and especially for his work on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. He is the author of What’s Wrong with Homosexuality? and Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with counterpoint by Maggie Gallagher), among other works, including the widely anthologized essay, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?”

Over the past two decades, Professor Corvino has engaged in over 80 public conversations or debates, mainly on the topic of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, religion, and other issues that arise in the “culture wars.” He has also delivered countless lectures on these topics at campuses and other venues, bringing arguments and perspectives about these topics to audiences often not accustomed to reasoning about them. An out gay man defending homosexuality against charges of immorality and arguing in favor same-sex marriage, Corvino has not shied away from bringing debate about these topics to some of the most conservative places in the country.

John Corvino (still image from one of his public philosophy videos)

He has spoken on CNN, ABC, FOX, C-SPAN, MSNBC, and other television networks, as well as radio. He also created several well-crafted series of videos, each with tens of thousands of views. They are available on YouTube. One of these is a 13-part series, “Better Argument with John Corvino,” in which he shares advice about reasoning in quick, informative, and amusing segments.

“Better argument” is a topic that Corvino is eminently qualified for, not just because he is a philosophy professor, but because he is someone who has consistently embodied virtuous reasoning in debate with others over topics not just of professional interest but personal importance, addressing not just hostile but at times hateful audiences. In person and on the screen, he is a gifted communicator who knows the value of engaging with “the other side” and knows that such engagement, to be effective, requires understanding and honesty.

Of his medical condition, Professor Corvino says, “I’m sharing this news publicly to raise awareness about PPAOS and FTD, and also to let friends who haven’t seen me in a while know that, if you bump into me and I seem awkward in conversation, the problem isn’t you.”

He adds:

I still enjoy writing, which is unaffected by the PPAOS. I am finishing up my book project on political polarization, civility, and free speech for Oxford University Press (stay tuned!), and I’ve begun work on a memoir. I never thought my life was interesting enough for a memoir, but for someone who once had a thriving public speaking career to develop a rare neurodegenerative condition that targets speech—let’s just say that I’ve found my “hook.”

Corvino’s Facebook post about his condition is here.

The post One of Philosophy’s Most Influential Public Voices May Lose His Own first appeared on Daily Nous.