Brain candy

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

 The Pig That Wants to be Eaten: And Ninety-Nine Other Thought Experiments
Bank errors, adultery, and suicide bombers can be illuminated by philosophical examination âe" and a delicious time can be had doing it

THOUGHT experiments, imaginary scenarios that shed light on real problems, have been a part of philosophy since Plato's cave. Often they are paradoxes intended to make us re-examine our assumptions or exercises that test the boundaries of a new theory. Fun, vivid, provocative, and sometimes strangely persuasive, they are moments of story and invention in the midst of logical argument; the prizes in philosophy's cereal box.

The popularizing British philosopher Julian Baggini, author of Making Sense: Philosophy Behind the Headlines and Whatâe(TM)s It All About: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life, has collected a hundred of them for this friendly book. All the undergraduate stoner favourites are here (How do I know I'm not just a brain in a vat? If all the cells in my body are replaced, am I still the same person?), as well as classics like Descartes' demon and Buridan's ass, and more contemporary specimens, such as Bernard Williams' illustration of moral luck based on the life of Paul Gauguin.

Baggini compresses each into a page or two, rewriting them chattily and bringing them up to date with a ton of pop culture references, from Kwik-E-Marts to zombies; The Matrix makes its inevitable appearance. Sometimes he's a touch too cute. But he subjects each case to a short analysis, pulling out the philosophical questions it raises without forcing the reader into an answer. In fact, his discussions often end with a question mark themselves.

The book very effectively shows how all kinds of problems and situations, from bank errors to adultery to suicide bombers, can be illuminated by philosophical examination. Without trumpeting the fact, Baggini ranges across the discipline, from ethics to epistemology, aesthetics to metaphysics, using appealing examples to raise serious questions: an ABM doles out $10,000 instead of $100 (is a victimless crime wrong?); an environmentalist travels by greenhouse-gas-emitting jumbo jet (must we practise what we preach?); an old buddy shoots Senator Smith because in college, Smith asked his friends to kill him if he ever voted Republican (do we have the right to make binding decisions on our future selves?); a weathered rock looks exactly like a Henry Moore sculpture (what defines a work of art?); a family's cat is run over (is it acceptable for them to eat it for dinner?).

You may have knee-jerk reactions to the situations set out above; in his discussions, Baggini forces you to stop and think about what your opinion relies on or implies. With a bit of prodding from the author, you can sometimes reason your way to a more defensible position. But often, the lesson is simply that things are more complicated than they seem. Especially in Bagginiâe(TM)s examples from medical ethics, clear-cut positions are to be distrusted.

The book does cheat a little: many of the entries, including most of those mentioned above, aren't thought experiments in the strictest sense, because they don't invent a scenario that is conceptually challenging in itself. For the moment, we can't do memory transplants; imagining what would happen after the operation forces us to examine what we think constitutes a person. Bank machines, on the other hand, do sometimes dispense too much or too little money, and there's nothing shocking about a computer error. In such cases, Baggini just retells a commonplace event and asks us to look at its consequences with philosophical spectacles on.

But it's hard to cavil much because this book is a strong invitation to think. It's a defence of the philosophical virtues, an engaging kick from lucidity and clarity at confused concepts, blurry language, self-interested moralizing. One doesnâe(TM)t want to argue with its aims.

A side benefit is that as well as showing what a philosophical approach to problems consists of, The Pig That Wants to be Eaten shares some professional tools: the point that facts are always under-determined by evidence (events can never be fully explained, which is why the courts ask for proof only “beyond a reasonable doubt” and conspiracy theories inevitably have some ground to stand on); vocabulary like the “indeterminacy of translation” and “relevant similarity”; enjoyable trivia like the difference between Nietzsche's eternal return and what happens to Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. Even when the subject under discussion is familiar, the approach is instructive.

There are a few things this book doesn't do. Baggini says that a thought experiment is a way to strip down a problem to its essentials, removing all the contingencies real-world examples are burdened with. But thought experiments are not uncontroversial: some philosophers argue that when you pare down a situation, you inevitably shape it. As such, they claim, the technique itself is flawed; thought experiments are like loaded dice, and they reveal more about the assumptions of their inventors than about conceptual problems or the outside world.

Similarly, The Pigâe¦ doesn't consider the formal qualities of thought experiments. It doesn't explore how strange it is to have such imaginative, narrative moments in what's supposed to be the realm of pure thought and argumentation. Baggini doesnâe(TM)t wonder what kind of appeal thought experiments make to the reader or what sort of rhetoric they employ.

But those are questions for another day, another book. The Pig That Wants to be Eaten (the title comes from a disconcerting talking meal in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) aims to provoke thought and entertain, and it succeeds handily at both.âe"Damian Tarnopolsky

related items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.