Trigger Warnings

Is it ok for an instructor at a university to traumatize their students? Surely not…. What about re-traumatizing students by exposing them to material that reminds them of a past trauma and triggers feelings similar to those they experienced then? And now we’re engaged with the debate in some colleges and universities about trigger warnings.

What kind of situation might call for a trigger warning? A good example would be a student in a film class who had been raped and was shown Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, without knowing beforehand that it contains a scene of violent rape and who was re-traumatized by the experience.

What a sensible trigger warning policy would try to avoid is similar instances where a student is re-traumatized by exposure to triggering material that they have no prior way of knowing will be triggering.

Is it possible to craft such a policy? I could see how it might be difficult, but I also see no reason to think it impossible on surface examination. Certainly crafting such a policy would be a fantastic interdisciplinary opportunity for philosophers specializing in ethics and psychologists specializing in trauma. What better way to show the practical utility of both disciples than to take on an issue of student welfare together.

A group of people like that working together would I think be able to create a sensible policy that recognized academic freedom and that it’s neither possible, nor desirable to avoid all instances of people being upset or offended by what they’re exposed to at a college or university, but that still would help instructors avoid re-traumatizing their students.

I think a voluntary policy emphasizing providing warnings for the most obvious kinds of traumatizing events present in course content as a best practice would be a good start. Since the trigger warning movements in colleges and universities are often student led, faculty and instructors ignore them at their peril. If they gain enough momentum, administration will pick them up and end up imposing a policy that may be to no one’s liking. Instructors also risk their reputation among students if they consistently ignore these issues, not a trivial issue given the easily accessible instructor ratings out there for other prospective students to see.

What about leaving it up to students to bring their issues to the attention of their instructors so they can be addressed? To place the burden on traumatized people to explain their traumas to others they don’t know well or at all seems deeply unsympathetic and unempathetic. It fails to acknowledge the psychological toll that results and one can even make a strong argument that requiring that of students could itself be re-traumatizing.

As much as challenging students with uncomfortable ideas is considered by some to be at the heart of what college is about (and this is quite debatable, depending on the field and even the class in question), it doesn’t seem at all necessary or desirable to re-traumatize students in the process. Surely there is a better way.

Ethics of Floor Meat

Have you ever dropped food on the floor? Have you ever been inclined to pick it up and eat it? If it’s just you and you know what dropped on the floor, for how long, etc., then that decision might make sense. Would you be OK with a chef in a restaurant making that kind of decision for you? My guess would be no …

On a recent episode of Chopped Canada on the Canadian version of Food Network, one of the competing chefs dropped all their sliced raw meat on the floor of the kitchen. The chef then proceeded to wash the meat for several minutes and ended up cooking it and serving it to the judges, who ate it.

So, what’s the ethical issue here? Mostly I think it consists in the bad example that eating the floor meat sets for others. The Chopped Canada kitchen is unique in being very transparent. Everything that happens is being observed closely and filmed. This left the judges in a good position to evaluate what happened to the meat and how it was treated afterwards and make a personal decision about whether to eat the meat. While it was personal, though, it wasn’t private as the Chopped Canada kitchen is uniquely public as well.

The contestant in question and some of the judges are professional chefs and it doesn’t seem appropriate to set a public example that serving floor meat is acceptable, especially when it’s hard to imagine any other scenario of people being served food that would be as transparent as the Chopped Canada kitchen. What might have been a justifiable personal decision, becomes a problematic one when you add the context of professional obligations in a public setting.

I’d have hoped the contestant, judges and producers of the show would have looked at things through that lens and decided that the meat shouldn’t have been served or eaten, since the unique situation of the show is so unlike the real life situations where a similar situation might occur. One can only hope they haven’t left anyone glancing with concern at the next plate of food they get at a restaurant.

So, what’s it all about?

First, why the title? It’s part of a quote by William James on philosophy from his book Pragmatism: “Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits.” Surely true and true of life as well, filled as it is with both sublime and trivial moments. So, the plan for this blog is to explore where philosophy and life meet and interact in interesting ways.

What will that look like? I think examples will serve better than an explanation, so watch this space and see. Even though I’ve been educated in western analytic philosophy, I’ll be avoiding the language and jargon of academic philosophy wherever possible, since it mostly serves as shorthand for things that can be explained in clearer and more accessible ways. Hopefully that will make for a blog that’s both interesting and enjoyable to read.

Comments and feedback are welcome and hope that you enjoy,

Tyler Sork