For many years, if not centuries, philosophers, theologians and other critical thinkers have questioned the nature and role of fear. When is fear working for us in a good way and when is it not? This question and others related to it have been of philosophical and ethical interest in how to manage one's life and society, in a good way. I myself have off and on entered into these arguments as a fearologist and fearanalyst. I have had many disagreements with others [1]. That is a vast literature and exploration for the keen learner to explore.
But for purposes of this short posting, let me offer a very interesting clear (albeit, a rather incomplete analysis with flaws) paper published recently that makes an argument for the 'weaponizing of fear' as ethical and pragmatic to bringing about good ends (note: Middle-eastern Abrahamic religious traditions have done this as well). The article by Akande (2024) brings with it an African perspective of traditionalism (e.g., Yoruba, argues Akande) with rational philosophy (i.e., pragmatism) and suggests the better way to go in controlling cruel treatment of people towards animals (and their rights)--is to bring fear into the people rather than attempting to bring love into the people [2]. The latter, so Akande argues, has failed pragmatically. Such love-based approaches fail to stop people abusing animals, so he assumes in his pragmatic ethical philosophy. Taboos work, according to Akande--i.e., weaponizing fear works.
So "rational fear" is proposed as a solution to human cruelty, which IF the author is correct, is to be generalized to improve peace on the planet in general.
I have attached Akande on weaponizing fear.pdf published in Aquino: Journal of Philosophy 4(2). 2024, entitled:
"THE USE OF FEAR IN ANIMAL RIGHTS DISCOURSE: AN ETHICAL PRAGMATIST APPROACH"
[note: Akande cites minimally fearist thinkers, like Desh Subba, Michael Eneyo, and myself and Akande even uses the term "fearism" as an alignment with his own philosophy, but he does so in a very narrow ascription and under-theorized way making his arguments suspect to incompleteness and distortions]
I would like to thank this philosopher Akande Michael Aina, a Nigerian philosopher, for tackling this debate and I would like to see more debates continue on this topic. So, do write and discuss things here on the Fearlessness Movement ning, for example.
****
End Notes
1. Most of those debates have been published in articles in the International Journal of Fear Studies a few years ago.
2. I think that oppositional binary of the debates is the first major problem--I offer a third route, which is "fearlessness." Akande does not even mention this option in their paper.
