by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

I couldn’t believe it when GOP Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio said that “we need more welders and less philosophers” during the November 10 GOP Presidential Candidate debates. For the moment, I’ll put the incorrect grammar aside (it should be “fewer philosophers, not less”). As someone who is employed in an area of applied philosophy, I certainly found this offensive. As a bioethicist I work to help people think more and I hope that I have a positive influence on the world. Such statements are a continued attack on academia and the intellectual professions. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory proposed that philosophy majors should not be eligible for federal funds. In 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott was out to end anthropology as a major in his state. This despite the fact that many executives are philosophy majors. Ironically, Rubio himself was a political science major; Carly Fiorina graduate with a degree in medieval history and philosophy; and Jeb Bush’s undergraduate degree is in Latin. Clearly the liberal arts did not hold them back.

The presumption behind these comments is that higher education is job training. It is not. Education is about bettering the self, learning to think, and learning to critically analyze facts, studies, and debate. Perhaps that’s the reason that some people are against it. They want to “modernize higher education” (according to Rubio) which seems to be the mantra for faster and cheaper education—creating workers and not citizens.

Rubio stated that people need to be funneled away from higher education and toward technical learning because “welders make more money than philosophers.” To accept this concept means that one must accept that wealth is the “good”—the end of all action—not eudemonia, not utility, not virtue, just this notion of wealth. This idea also ignores the fact that wealth and income are tied to further education.

The attack on philosophy did not end. Cruz rallied against “philosopher-kings” creating monetary policy. Later Kasich talked about a chief executive having to be someone who takes definitive action to solve problems: “you just don’t say we believe in philosophical concerns.” He said you have to take action and fix things. This sounds a lot like acting without thinking. I’m not sure how philosophy can be the answer and also the problem. They equate philosophy with inaction rather than deep thought and consideration. Action without thought usually leads to disaster.

The one point of support for philosophy also came from Kasich who said about Wall Street, “There’s too much greed.” He also cited Michael Novack saying that free enterprise must be “underlaid with values.” “Yes, free enterprise is great, profits are great, but there have to be some values that underlay it, and they [Wall Street] need a good ethics lesson on Wall Street on a regular basis to keep them in check so we, the people, do not lose.” So philosophy may have a use in the form of business ethics. If there are no philosophers, then who will teach them? Who else can define the difference between greed and profit?

To quote a former President, “The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate.” Then again, perhaps that’s the problem, they don’t want us educated, they want us obedient.