One is " Omniocracy," a sweeping work of political philosophy decades in the making, proposing a new ethical foundation for society that rejects moral absolutes and instead grounds moral consideration for all beings in science and policy. In Laws' view, traditional political systems are inherently prejudiced: they work for humans only, excluding the vast majority of sentient beings. An omniocracy, she argues, would account for all living beings as constituents whose interests must be weighed in the decisions that affect them.
In previous posts, I argued that empathy, expressed in different ways-as feelings of compassion, an abhorrence of cruelty, and a wider circle of concern-is the core of a liberal worldview and a liberal political philosophy. I added, however, several important caveats: Liberals are not always empathic, conservatives are not always callous, and policies animated by empathy are not always wise.
In this edited conversation, Isaacson '74, a journalist and author of best-selling biographies of Benjamin Franklin (2003) and Steve Jobs (2011), digs into the story behind the drafting of the sentence, explains why he believes it is so foundational, and argues that a re-examination of the ideas could remind our riven nation of the common values to which we aspire.
Then they return with force, helping us understand today's world, explaining how and when it fell apart, and what allowed someone like Donald Trump to rise to power. The American theorist, a leading voice in progressive thought, dissects causes and consequences with surgical precision in each of his books, and never shies away from bringing some of the great ideas of classical and contemporary thought to everyday citizens.