Academic freedom vs. morality: A plea for differentiated views

Academic freedom vs. morality: A plea for differentiated views

With his new book “Academic Freedom and Morality,” philosopher Tim Henning raises an exciting question: How free should science really be? In a world increasingly characterized by moral debates, Henning discusses how science should not suffer from moral objections. He argues that scientific theses must endure even if they provoke critical voices. Particularly controversial topics such as Charles Murray's genetic theses are the focus of his considerations.

Henning calls for a differentiated view of academic freedom and not to rush into the passionate culture wars. His central thesis: Science should only deal with moral objections when the “costs of error”, i.e. possible damage, are high. This calls for a critical examination of the consequences and brings to the fore insights that are often overshadowed by morals and ethics.

A provocative work

Although the book does not feature shocking anecdotes or captivating metaphors, it has a captivating effect on readers. You can literally feel how subtle Henning, despite the sometimes clunky language, aims to explore one of the crucial questions of our time. It is an invitation to engage with the nature of science and not to make a careless leap into cultural conflict. At a time when science is often sacrificed at the altar of morality, Henning's approach remains provocative and relevant.