Two Philosophical Questions
Some philosophers have posed questions they believe need attention in philosophy. (See here.) Two stand out for me.
-- How can we reconcile the intuition that all humans have intrinsic value with the intuition that some people are better than others?
-- Why do we seek to know that which would harm us were we to know it? Is ignorance better than knowledge in some cases?
Regarding the first question, here’s an option to reconcile the intuitions. Suppose that there is some metaphysical fact about human beings, such as that we are made in the image of God. This fact grounds our intrinsic value. Thus, every human being has intrinsic value since everyone is made in God’s image. However, it is empirically evident that some human beings are better than others with respect to properties such as intelligence, wisdom, honesty, athleticism, conscientiousness, etc. In short, all human beings are equal with respect to the imago dei; hence we cannot be ranked in this respect. Yet human beings differ regarding various features and thus can be ranked concerning them.
The second question seems to presuppose that knowledge is merely an instrumental value, i.e., a means to human flourishing. On this assumption, if an item of knowledge contributes to human flourishing, then it is good; if it fails to contribute, we are better off without it.
But suppose that knowledge is an intrinsic value, or that knowledge is an essential aspect of human flourishing. If this is the case, would the possession of knowledge harm us with respect to long-term welfare? Perhaps not, though I won't pursue this question here. I might need to address the definitions of 'knowledge,' 'intrinsic value,' 'instrumental value,' and 'human flourishing.' Those issues must wait for another post.
And even if the possession of some item of knowledge k were to harm someone in some respect, wouldn't the possession of k be good if knowledge is intrinsically valuable?