I have a personal experience our family is working through that as a mother has challenged my values. We discuss it in therapy. There is a crime I feel for the first time in my life warrants the death penalty. While validated that the anger is justified, I know there is no consequence that would remedy the numerous violations that occurred. No court. No sentencing. No settlement.
It’s the struggle to accept the evil that men do. There is not an adequate why. The naïveté of believing that decency is rewarded with decency causes cognitive dissonance I can’t yet reconcile. Decent people suffer the effects of horrendous crimes.
My son asked me about Plato while studying. Whether the survivor is actually better off than the perpetrator. I didn’t tell him I don’t believe it, but we discussed the dialogue from many angles.
I think I may return to my core values at some point. We aren’t the same. And maybe somehow we’ll be ok.
Thank you for sharing something so personal and challenging. Your struggle speaks to the profound tension between our deepest emotional reactions and our moral frameworks—a tension that deserves respect, not dismissal.
I would never begrudge anyone their feelings, especially someone processing trauma. I've felt those same primal instincts of vengeance. The desire for retribution seems wired into us at a fundamental level, particularly when harm comes to those we love.
What troubles me about Hanania's piece isn't that he acknowledges these feelings—it's that he builds an entire moral framework that deliberately collapses the tension between feeling and principle, rather than holding that difficult space. He transforms his subjective emotional reaction into a justification for state policy without wrestling with the deeper questions this raises.
As you so eloquently put it, "there is no consequence that would remedy the numerous violations that occurred." This honest recognition—that no punishment can truly heal certain wounds—is precisely the moral complexity Hanania avoids.
The conversation you had with your son about Plato reflects a depth of moral engagement that Hanania's piece lacks entirely. You're holding the tension, exploring it from multiple angles, allowing for uncertainty and growth.
Our subjective experiences are real and valid—but they don't absolve us of our moral obligations to others or to careful ethical reasoning. It's completely possible that Elon Musk's behavior can be understood through trauma or his neurodiversity. But that doesn't release him of his moral obligations.
I believe your willingness to say "I think I may return to my core values at some point" reflects a moral courage that's absent from Hanania's framework. You're allowing for complexity and evolution in your thinking, even amidst unimaginable difficulty.
Thank you for modeling what genuine moral engagement looks like, even—especially—when it's painfully difficult.
Thank you for modeling such a solid internal compass. It doesn’t help to become inflammatory, I know.
I wonder about people fixated on true crime stories as if they were torture porn. It’s a feature of conspiracy theories that solidify the current cult mentality of the in group we see becoming metastatic. Externalization of the monster can be cathartic in story telling as with elements of horror + the sublime, but these fictions serve a prosocial function of helping us process fears collectively with familiar motifs becoming tools to practice dancing with death.
I find the syncretism of sociocultural context fascinating. Stories have migrated with human beings throughout the ages. I don’t understand why they are ever devalued.
This current zeitgeist influenced by generators of hate in real time eclipses understanding. We have the reference points of history, but novel applications are becoming so disorienting. The reality show template exacerbates humanity’s worst tendencies by creating justification of otherization. For the lulz.
Thank you for shredding this deeply toxic messaging. It must be extremely wearing to have to spend your precious time fighting this onslaught, where most of us just bury our heads. 💕
1) it should surprise nobody when a man who’s primary value is as a devil’s advocate should advocate for the devil.
2) If we know anything from the past ten years it’s that people like Hanania are comfortably in the majority in America. We are the weird ones. If the grown ups don’t throw them a bone every once in a while they will find somebody who will.
I haven't read his argument, but doesn't it boil down to this:
1. A large segment of American society has a lot of unhealthy instincts that will move society in a terrible direction if they are indulged.
2. If a government refuses to pass *any* laws that indulge these instincts, then this segment of society will become agitated enough to change the government so that it passes *lots* of laws that indulge these instincts.
3. Therefore, to prevent the situation described in 2, it follows that a government must pass at least *some* laws to indulge these instincts.
4. Of all the laws to pass to indulge these instincts, a highly active death penalty is the best such law.
5. Therefore, the government should allow for a highly active death penalty.
Agree or disagree with the argument, it *is* an argument. So I don't see why it doesn't count as philosophy.
For what it's worth, Hanania has said in other places that he's a consequentialist, so there's a background consequentialism to this argument, as is evident in statements 3-5.
This guy needs to take up MMA and take his 9mm to the range and pop off 100 rounds when feels “the call.” Leave the dystopian dreams to Netflix. Watched too much Dexter.
This man’s name comes up from time-to-time when people I consider serious thinkers write reaction pieces to something he’s said or written that is so wrongheaded that anyone else who had made those thought publicly available would lose their right to be considered a voice of value immediately.
I don’t get it. Does he write a pretty decent thinkpiece most of the time and the contrast bear reflection? Is he a valuable thought leader to a significant group that he might have a hand in leading astray? Is he dating someone’s ex?
Why do people consider this guy at all is what I am asking.
I remember reading Camus in college and discovering his arguments against the death penalty; and discovering how much my acceptance-and even tacit approval of it-was rooted in a primal need for retributive justice. And then how intellectually and morally bankrupt those impulses-no matter how “natural” really were in a compassionate society. And the inherent idea from that-that the state should never grant itself rights it denies its citizens-be and a touchstone of how I viewed a just world. Thank you for this reminder of the ways that the conception of justice and punishment are windows into people’s ideas of what society is and should be.
You must have not been following him for very long or read his work very carefully. He has always held these views, once commenting that in his ideal world criminals should get the death penalty after more than one offense. What you're describing is a "Dexter" for political/moral philosophy and I think that's a good way to understand his worldview.
Unlike many reactionary libertarians like Bryan Caplan who promote retributive justice on the grounds that "free will" exists, Hanania takes his understanding of the determinism of genes/heredity to their logical conclusion. Despite this he thinks it's important to have a world in which the strong and powerful who exercise "smart" and "correct" choices are rewarded and the weak and stupid are punished or at the very least are know their place. He has commented that it makes him happy that technological progress appears to increase not decrease the salience of human differences in talent and ability.
I think this essay is a good reminder that liberals (like conservatives) are fundamentally tribal. You saw a guy clowning Elon Musk and talking about how much he believes in free trade and open borders and you barely thought to read closely into why he believes in these things.
All the people who want the death penalty and know the basic facts about it are exercising their violent demons. There is no good reason to debate it anymore. It serves no purpose and the arguments for it are shitty.
And yes—there’s something very wrong with him. There’s a lot wrong with him. I suppose he is very skilled at getting attention by openly revealing what’s wrong with him even if it is much less novel that it used to be. I wouldn’t read anything he wrote if you paid me but maybe now that this way of thinking is swallowing our world, I’m going to be intrigued by somebody admitting it.
I prefer the compliment vice pays to virtue because normalizing that darkness is one of our problems. People with that darkness should be wise enough to understand it can destroy civilization, and not need to reach out and make friends with others who possess it. But my sense he is revealing something that is behind the rise in fascism—they don’t value civilization, and they would like to make friends with others who have their darkness, and unleash it on the world. It won’t help them, not at all.
You’re surprised someone long attracted to Naziism wasn’t making a good argument, and was instead revealing their derangement?
I think it’s a primal urge for justice, and I don’t disagree with it. Rehabilitative justice has failed utterly in the US, our leaders have proven beyond any doubt that our sole moral principle is expediency, and innocent people are locked away for decades because the district attorney wanted to be reelected. I can’t stand in judgment of anyone who regards the only path to justice as running thru vengeance. Not ideal but show me one thing in our current system that is? Broken people, broken world.
There's a crucial difference between recognizing legitimate anger at crime and building a moral framework that deliberately collapses the tension between that anger and our aspirations for justice. Hanania doesn't offer a path to repair our broken system—he normalizes the channeling of admittedly problematic impulses rather than questioning them. I can't judge individuals grappling with trauma in an unjust system, but I can question someone who constructs an entire framework around directing primitive impulses rather than examining them.
And when we are talking about human lives, and ending them, the details really do matter. This has serious moral implications beyond simple emotional and psychological satisfaction. Especially since not everyone shares this need for satisfaction. There are plenty of cases where even the kin of murdered people have opposed the death penalty for their loved one's killer on principle. I'm not saying you have to agree with that. But this is not some issue that can be casually set aside.
I have a personal experience our family is working through that as a mother has challenged my values. We discuss it in therapy. There is a crime I feel for the first time in my life warrants the death penalty. While validated that the anger is justified, I know there is no consequence that would remedy the numerous violations that occurred. No court. No sentencing. No settlement.
It’s the struggle to accept the evil that men do. There is not an adequate why. The naïveté of believing that decency is rewarded with decency causes cognitive dissonance I can’t yet reconcile. Decent people suffer the effects of horrendous crimes.
My son asked me about Plato while studying. Whether the survivor is actually better off than the perpetrator. I didn’t tell him I don’t believe it, but we discussed the dialogue from many angles.
I think I may return to my core values at some point. We aren’t the same. And maybe somehow we’ll be ok.
Thank you for sharing something so personal and challenging. Your struggle speaks to the profound tension between our deepest emotional reactions and our moral frameworks—a tension that deserves respect, not dismissal.
I would never begrudge anyone their feelings, especially someone processing trauma. I've felt those same primal instincts of vengeance. The desire for retribution seems wired into us at a fundamental level, particularly when harm comes to those we love.
What troubles me about Hanania's piece isn't that he acknowledges these feelings—it's that he builds an entire moral framework that deliberately collapses the tension between feeling and principle, rather than holding that difficult space. He transforms his subjective emotional reaction into a justification for state policy without wrestling with the deeper questions this raises.
As you so eloquently put it, "there is no consequence that would remedy the numerous violations that occurred." This honest recognition—that no punishment can truly heal certain wounds—is precisely the moral complexity Hanania avoids.
The conversation you had with your son about Plato reflects a depth of moral engagement that Hanania's piece lacks entirely. You're holding the tension, exploring it from multiple angles, allowing for uncertainty and growth.
Our subjective experiences are real and valid—but they don't absolve us of our moral obligations to others or to careful ethical reasoning. It's completely possible that Elon Musk's behavior can be understood through trauma or his neurodiversity. But that doesn't release him of his moral obligations.
I believe your willingness to say "I think I may return to my core values at some point" reflects a moral courage that's absent from Hanania's framework. You're allowing for complexity and evolution in your thinking, even amidst unimaginable difficulty.
Thank you for modeling what genuine moral engagement looks like, even—especially—when it's painfully difficult.
Thank you for modeling such a solid internal compass. It doesn’t help to become inflammatory, I know.
I wonder about people fixated on true crime stories as if they were torture porn. It’s a feature of conspiracy theories that solidify the current cult mentality of the in group we see becoming metastatic. Externalization of the monster can be cathartic in story telling as with elements of horror + the sublime, but these fictions serve a prosocial function of helping us process fears collectively with familiar motifs becoming tools to practice dancing with death.
I find the syncretism of sociocultural context fascinating. Stories have migrated with human beings throughout the ages. I don’t understand why they are ever devalued.
This current zeitgeist influenced by generators of hate in real time eclipses understanding. We have the reference points of history, but novel applications are becoming so disorienting. The reality show template exacerbates humanity’s worst tendencies by creating justification of otherization. For the lulz.
Thank you for shredding this deeply toxic messaging. It must be extremely wearing to have to spend your precious time fighting this onslaught, where most of us just bury our heads. 💕
1) it should surprise nobody when a man who’s primary value is as a devil’s advocate should advocate for the devil.
2) If we know anything from the past ten years it’s that people like Hanania are comfortably in the majority in America. We are the weird ones. If the grown ups don’t throw them a bone every once in a while they will find somebody who will.
I haven't read his argument, but doesn't it boil down to this:
1. A large segment of American society has a lot of unhealthy instincts that will move society in a terrible direction if they are indulged.
2. If a government refuses to pass *any* laws that indulge these instincts, then this segment of society will become agitated enough to change the government so that it passes *lots* of laws that indulge these instincts.
3. Therefore, to prevent the situation described in 2, it follows that a government must pass at least *some* laws to indulge these instincts.
4. Of all the laws to pass to indulge these instincts, a highly active death penalty is the best such law.
5. Therefore, the government should allow for a highly active death penalty.
Agree or disagree with the argument, it *is* an argument. So I don't see why it doesn't count as philosophy.
For what it's worth, Hanania has said in other places that he's a consequentialist, so there's a background consequentialism to this argument, as is evident in statements 3-5.
This guy needs to take up MMA and take his 9mm to the range and pop off 100 rounds when feels “the call.” Leave the dystopian dreams to Netflix. Watched too much Dexter.
This man’s name comes up from time-to-time when people I consider serious thinkers write reaction pieces to something he’s said or written that is so wrongheaded that anyone else who had made those thought publicly available would lose their right to be considered a voice of value immediately.
I don’t get it. Does he write a pretty decent thinkpiece most of the time and the contrast bear reflection? Is he a valuable thought leader to a significant group that he might have a hand in leading astray? Is he dating someone’s ex?
Why do people consider this guy at all is what I am asking.
I remember reading Camus in college and discovering his arguments against the death penalty; and discovering how much my acceptance-and even tacit approval of it-was rooted in a primal need for retributive justice. And then how intellectually and morally bankrupt those impulses-no matter how “natural” really were in a compassionate society. And the inherent idea from that-that the state should never grant itself rights it denies its citizens-be and a touchstone of how I viewed a just world. Thank you for this reminder of the ways that the conception of justice and punishment are windows into people’s ideas of what society is and should be.
You must have not been following him for very long or read his work very carefully. He has always held these views, once commenting that in his ideal world criminals should get the death penalty after more than one offense. What you're describing is a "Dexter" for political/moral philosophy and I think that's a good way to understand his worldview.
Unlike many reactionary libertarians like Bryan Caplan who promote retributive justice on the grounds that "free will" exists, Hanania takes his understanding of the determinism of genes/heredity to their logical conclusion. Despite this he thinks it's important to have a world in which the strong and powerful who exercise "smart" and "correct" choices are rewarded and the weak and stupid are punished or at the very least are know their place. He has commented that it makes him happy that technological progress appears to increase not decrease the salience of human differences in talent and ability.
I think this essay is a good reminder that liberals (like conservatives) are fundamentally tribal. You saw a guy clowning Elon Musk and talking about how much he believes in free trade and open borders and you barely thought to read closely into why he believes in these things.
All the people who want the death penalty and know the basic facts about it are exercising their violent demons. There is no good reason to debate it anymore. It serves no purpose and the arguments for it are shitty.
And yes—there’s something very wrong with him. There’s a lot wrong with him. I suppose he is very skilled at getting attention by openly revealing what’s wrong with him even if it is much less novel that it used to be. I wouldn’t read anything he wrote if you paid me but maybe now that this way of thinking is swallowing our world, I’m going to be intrigued by somebody admitting it.
I prefer the compliment vice pays to virtue because normalizing that darkness is one of our problems. People with that darkness should be wise enough to understand it can destroy civilization, and not need to reach out and make friends with others who possess it. But my sense he is revealing something that is behind the rise in fascism—they don’t value civilization, and they would like to make friends with others who have their darkness, and unleash it on the world. It won’t help them, not at all.
You’re surprised someone long attracted to Naziism wasn’t making a good argument, and was instead revealing their derangement?
I think it’s a primal urge for justice, and I don’t disagree with it. Rehabilitative justice has failed utterly in the US, our leaders have proven beyond any doubt that our sole moral principle is expediency, and innocent people are locked away for decades because the district attorney wanted to be reelected. I can’t stand in judgment of anyone who regards the only path to justice as running thru vengeance. Not ideal but show me one thing in our current system that is? Broken people, broken world.
There's a crucial difference between recognizing legitimate anger at crime and building a moral framework that deliberately collapses the tension between that anger and our aspirations for justice. Hanania doesn't offer a path to repair our broken system—he normalizes the channeling of admittedly problematic impulses rather than questioning them. I can't judge individuals grappling with trauma in an unjust system, but I can question someone who constructs an entire framework around directing primitive impulses rather than examining them.
And when we are talking about human lives, and ending them, the details really do matter. This has serious moral implications beyond simple emotional and psychological satisfaction. Especially since not everyone shares this need for satisfaction. There are plenty of cases where even the kin of murdered people have opposed the death penalty for their loved one's killer on principle. I'm not saying you have to agree with that. But this is not some issue that can be casually set aside.
If it comes from a primal urge, it won’t be justice.