Professors of philosophy Janet Radcliffe- Richards and Derek Parfit © MARK ALLAN The truth seekers Derek Parfit and Janet Radcliffe-Richards believe that philosophy should guide behaviour. Their marriage shows that it can DAVID EDMONDS n the 1980s there was a seminar held ical philosophy would take turns to lead the regularly in the wood-panelled Old discussion and spend the best part of two Library at All Souls College in Oxford. hours sparring with each other at one end of It was known informally as “Star the room, which would be packed mostly with IWars.” Four giants of moral and polit- eager, awestruck postgraduate students. I was 1 THE TRUTH SEEKERS one of them and attended for a term. are Parfit and Radcliffe-Richards arguably The four philosophers were Derek Parfit, the world’s most cerebral romantic partner- Amartya Sen, Ronald Dworkin and GA ship, they are a fascinating study in the extent “Jerry” Cohen, all of them in their scholarly to which a philosopher’s professional con- prime. In 1982, Janet Radcliffe-Richards, victions, particularly in the sphere of moral who had just moved to Oxford, decided to go philosophy or ethics, shape his or her per- along to see for herself what everyone agreed sonal conduct—as Parfit thinks they should. was the best show in town—dazzling, preen- I recently visited them in their north London ing intellectual pyrotechnics. She was then in home. her late thirties, and a lecturer in philosophy Janet says she was initially “utterly baffled” at the Open University. She had recently pub- by Derek. He lacks certain common traits and lished a book entitled The Sceptical Feminist. doesn’t pick up on many normal social mes- sages. He has no envy or malice (though he en, who would go on to win a Nobel is no stranger to pride). During the “court- Prize in economics, already knew ing” process there were none of the usual woo- Radcliffe-Richards and after the sem- ing signals—no flowers or chocolates—but he inar went over to greet her. “Who was did once thrust into her arms the complete Sthat?” Parfit asked him. After extracting her keyboard scores of Bach. He also lent her an name and being told that she had recently old desktop computer sold to him by Ronald separated from a partner, Parfit wrote her a Dworkin. It kept crashing. “It was an indica- letter, which she says she will publish one day. tion of the strangeness of what was going on, “The most remarkable chat up letter in his- that when Derek suggested he come round at tory,” Radcliffe-Richards calls it. He’d bought midnight to deal with the computer, I thought The Sceptical Feminist as, according to her, “a he meant it.” He didn’t. sort of audition” and proceeded to pursue her In 2011, the night before they were due to get assiduously, oblivious to the fact that he was in married in a register office, Derek and Janet competition with four other men. were walking down Little Clarendon Street Today, Parfit is considered by many of his in Oxford on the way to a low-key celebra- peers to be the world’s most important liv- tion at an Indian restaurant. They had been ing moral philosopher. His first book, Reasons together for 29 years, and had taken the deci- and Persons, published in 1984, is routinely sion to marry largely on pragmatic grounds. described as a work of genius. He is now mar- They felt they were getting old, and formal- ried to Radcliffe-Richards, herself the author ising their relationship made it easier to set- of three widely admired books characterised tle issues such as inheritance and next-of-kin. by unflinching logic and a willingness to tol- There were to be only four witnesses at the erate uncomfortable conclusions. Not only ceremony: Janet’s sister and brother-in-law, 2 THE TRUTH SEEKERS her niece and her niece’s partner. yet unborn and whether we make the world a As they approached the restaurant they better place by bringing in more happy lives. passed a wedding shop. In the window was Parfit didn’t so much shape this sub-discipline one of those meringue bridal dresses, all pet- as create it. Most of the writing on the subject ticoats, hoops and trains. “That,” said Janet, takes issues he has raised as its starting point. jokingly, “is what I shall be wearing tomor- One conundrum that has exercised him row.” “Do you mean that exact one,” replied is the so-called “non-identity problem.” Derek, in all seriousness, “or one just like it?” Imagine that a woman knows that if she con- “‘That is what I shall be wearing tomorrow.’ ‘Do you mean that exact one,’ replied Derek ‘or one just like it?’” It was the kind of literal-mindedness that ceives a child now it will be born with a disa- Janet has become accustomed to, though it bility, but if she waits a couple of months she still tickles her. It had taken her some time, will have a “normal” child. Now, most people after first meeting Derek, to figure him out. would probably say that she should wait, and “You shouldn’t take up with Derek if you want not just because of the effect that a disabled a normal domestic relationship,” she says. child might have on the family and wider soci- “But I knew by then that I didn’t.” ety. The stronger intuition is that it is better Janet and Derek are both now Distinguished for the child. Research Fellows at Oxford’s Uehiro Centre But a moment’s thought allows us to see that for Practical Ethics, where I am a research this idea is misguided. If the woman delays con- associate. I was supervised by both of them as ception she will not make the life of the disa- a postgraduate. Derek supervised my BPhil bled child better; she will have a different child. dissertation and Janet was the supervisor for Provided that the disability is not too severe, my doctorate. My PhD was on the philosophy the woman who does not delay getting preg- of discrimination, a subject on which Janet nant is not making things worse for the hand- has written a great deal, though Oxford Uni- icapped child—if she puts off her pregnancy versity Press is still waiting for the book she this handicapped child would not exist at all. promised them. It took Parfit’s brilliance to recognise that My BPhil dissertation was on “future gen- this moral dilemma had far-reaching implica- erations” (or population ethics), a topic that tions. Decisions over climate change or other falls within the broad category of moral phi- forms of environmental degradation, for losophy. It deals with questions such as what example, have a similar structure. Suppose obligations and duties we have to people as we have to choose between two policies. Pol- 3 THE TRUTH SEEKERS icy A will conserve our resources, while policy B will deplete them. If we choose A, then the quality of life will be lower for a period than if we choose B. But after 300 years, say, it will be much higher, and will remain so indefinitely thereafter. Different people will be born depending on which policy we opt for. After three centuries there might be nobody alive who would have been born whichever policy we choose. In Rea- sons and Persons, Parfit suggests we will grasp this complex point more clearly if we ask our- selves, “If railways and motor cars had not been invented, would I still exist?” Normally, when we think that some- thing is bad, we think that it is bad because it is bad for one or more individuals. But in these non-identity cases there is nobody for whom the decision is bad. Parfit claims that this makes no difference. If in either of two outcomes the same number of people would live, he argues, it would be bad if those who © DEREK PARFIT live have a lower quality of life than those who One of Parfit’s photographs of the view from would have lived. his office in Oxford: he tends to photograph the The reasoning seems watertight. But more same subjects repeatedly perplexing difficulties arise when we are faced with decisions that will create different num- if other things are equal, would be better even bers of people. Parfit draws us down a path though its members have lives that are barely that leads inexorably to what he calls the worth living.” Parfit’s label for this conclusion “Repugnant Conclusion.” This has to do with makes it clear that he regards it as unpalata- the very real practical issue of what would ble, but he and other philosophers have found be the ideal population size. The Repugnant the logic that got him there hard to refute. Conclusion holds that “For any possible pop- As well as future generations, Reasons and ulation of at least 10bn people, all with a very Persons makes seminal contributions in other high quality of life, there must be some much areas of philosophy, including time (and our larger imaginable population whose existence, puzzling bias in favour of the future over the 4 THE TRUTH SEEKERS past) and personal identity (what kind of noticed that the plughole in the kitchen sink changes can we survive and which changes was blocked. She hadn’t known, because she involve our ceasing to exist). The book over- had never used the sink.