Michael McGowan

In the years since his suicide, scholars have explored David Foster Wallace's writing in transdisciplinary ways. This is the first book of its kind to discuss how Wallace understood and wrote about religion. At present, the scholarly community is sharply divided on how best to read Wallace on religious questions. Some interpret him to be a Nietzschean nihilist, while others see in him a profoundly spiritual, even mystical thinker. Some read Wallace as a Buddhist thinker, and others as a Christian existentialist. Involved at every level of this discussion are Wallace's experiences in Twelve Step recovery programs, according to which only a higher power can help one remove unwanted defects of character. The multifarious essays in this volume by literature, religion, and philosophy scholars in the Wallace community delve into Wallace's life and writings to advance the conversation about Wallace and religion. While they may disagree with one another in substantial ways, the contributors argue that Wallace was not only deliberate in his writings on religious themes, but also displayed an impressive level of theological nuance.

In this essay, I propose an update to a well-known pedagogical device many ethics professors utilize—the “Trolley Car” problem. I argue that by substituting older scenarios with ones from cutting edge and emerging technology the professor is better positioned to more fully engage today’s college students. Google’s self-driving car provides not only a fine substitution for the Trolley Car; it also acts as a mini-introduction to many of the other issues an introductory class on ethics will cover. Although it has typically been used to delineate consequentialist and anti-consequentialist moral reasoning, the Google car also can also be helpful to explore feminist ethical reasoning, planetary issues, the nature of justice, wealth distribution, and the limits of individual liberty.

The Good Place is based on the idea of an afterlife. The writers of The Good Place are certainly aware of the ways in which monotheistic traditions understand the afterlife. Rather than reflecting the Abrahamic religious traditions, the metaphysics of The Good Place share similarities with the Asian religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea that earthly actions have consequences for the afterlife mirrors the notion of karma, “the moral law of cause and effect” believed by both Hindus and Buddhists. The Good Place mirrors the Hindu tradition not only in reincarnation but also in the identification of the right “aims” or “goals” of life. In The Good Place, each character, in his or her own way, prepares for their release from the cycle of samsara, and each has come to accept reality as it is, accepting whatever their afterlives throw at them.

Saturday Night Live (SNL) has exploited sexual power differentials, pedophilia and molestation, and produced “Digital Shorts” that use women for sexual ends. SNL has even made light of slavery and mass shootings. Suffice it to say, SNL's producers, writers, and actors are unafraid to push the boundaries of what is considered socially acceptable on network television. By presenting awkward or insensitive or offensive material – like dating in a concentration camp – SNL performers remind people just how horrific some situations are, and hopefully it ignites the viewer's passion against the thing that is being mocked. SNL has a prophetic role in culture, speaking speaks truth to power through humor. SNL passes Joel Feinberg's test: no one is forced to watch. No one compels SNL to create socially acceptable sketches, but similarly, no one compels people to watch SNL.

In this essay I explore efforts at regulating race-related speech on publicly funded colleges and universities. In the first section, I present the scope of the current debate about the topic: what speech is, contexts in which it is found, etc. In the second section, I present the case for unrestricted speech on campuses for the advancement of knowledge and social progress. The third section addresses standard problem cases for free speech like the non-scientific nature of racist epithets, existential threats to the university, and involuntary exposure to racist speech. The fourth section explores arguments for regulating speech coming from critical race theorists and those who question the cultural narrative surrounding speech these days. In the fifth section, I lay bare the irreconcilable incompatibilities of free speech proponents and advocates of speech restrictions in several areas. The conclusion points the way forward toward by calling attention to the lingering questions about the values of knowledge and social progress.