This was a good Kindle book, i.e., something reasonably amusing to read off my iPhone during down times. It wasn't particularly profound, and not always accurate (actually dogs do understand pointing), but it does encourage thinking about things that might otherwise pass somewhat unnoticed. It was colored by Bowen's own opinions; he seems to be a rationalist/materialist, which if fine with me, but may limit considering all possible sides of the issue. The book reminded me of a cartoon in Mad magazine, where one driver rear ends another. The irate driver in the first car points out that he has a bumper sticker that says, "If you can read this, you're too close." The second driver said that he had pulled closer in order to read the bumper sticker; the type was too small to read at a safe distance.

I will give an example of a case where I think Bowen has failed to think through all the issues. I find that I keep reflecting on his comments on the bumper sticker "Against Abortion? Then Don't Have One!" I'm not going to argue with his comments on how the bumper sticker is worded, only with his moral reasoning.

Bowen argues that one cannot simply tell a person who thinks that abortion is murder to consider someone else's decision to be none of their business. I don't think Bowen has considered the situation adequately. I don't think he considers the mother at all. A friend keeps telling me that "pro-life" advocates consider the life of the mother and the fetus/baby to be of equal importance. Actually, it seems to me that most consider the fetus/baby to be more important, and demand that the mother continue a dangerous pregnancy rather than get an abortion even if it is quite likely that she won't live long enough to bring the fetus/baby to viability. There was the case of the Indian woman in Ireland who wanted to get an abortion because she had a dangerous infection. She was refused, and died soon after; her baby/fetus of course died with her. Not exactly a pro-life choice. There was an anti-abortion demonstration outside a post office near here, and a man walked up to the demonstrators and informed them that his mother had an abortion during a difficult pregnancy, and therefore survived to have him and his sister, which he felt was the true pro-life choice. In addition, some argue that if both mother and fetus/baby cannot be saved at the time of birth, or late in pregnancy, the mother should be sacrificed. I respect the right of individual women to make that choice, but not of other people to make the choice for her.

Since many of the pro-lifers are religious, believing that the most important thing in life is to achieve salvation, there is a certain logic: the mother has had her chance to be saved, and should give the fetus/baby a chance. However, I, and many others don't believe that. I consider the mother to be much more important, since her death would be a more serious tragedy for her family, which may include other children who need their mother, as well as a husband, other relatives, and the social fabric. I am not willing to see any woman martyred for someone else's religious beliefs. How does Bowen resolve that issue?

"Pro-lifers" also tend to oppose contraception, even in cases where a pregnancy would be risky for the woman concerned. In this case they sometimes make it clear that one reason for their stand is that children are the punishment for people tacky enough to engage in sex, even inside of marriage. This can end up being punishing for the child as well. How can this be argued as so serious an issue that other people should be forced to confirm to religious beliefs that they don't hold, especially since as heretics they are presumably barred from salvation anyway? Realistically speaking, contraception does the most to lower the abortion rate; abstinence is effective (except in cases of rape), but I am unaware of any time when people could be relied on to be abstinent. Illegitimate children seem to be a constant. There is, of course, also the fact that so many who oppose contraception and abortion oppose the social safety net for children after they are born.

I have one last thought. Christians have traditionally considered heresy to be worse than murder, since it kills the soul, hence the horrific penalty of being burned alive, preferably with green wood to increase the agony. The heretic must be removed for the protection of others that he/she might lead astray. Again, this is logical within the confines of certain religious beliefs. Would Bowen respect to this also sincerely held religious opinion, even if there was some less deadly penalty for unbelievers?

Granted most pregnant women are not in this life or death situation, but, these issues, and the lower value that the "Pro-Life" place on the potential mother's life, has the effect of reducing my respect for them, their claim to be "pro-life," and their competence as moral advisors. ( )

Entertaining, though I've never seen half the bumper stickers he mentions ( )

Entertaining, though I've never seen half the bumper stickers he mentions ( )

Entertaining, though I've never seen half the bumper stickers he mentions ( )

Bowen’s statement on page 95 best summarizes the book: “Note to any first-year high school teachers looking for an example to teach ‘dogmatism,’ look no further.” I sought out this book after hearing a book tour discussion with the author on the radio and was really excited. Apparently, Bowen is much more congenial in public than he is when he’s in his university office writing a book.

If You Can Read This uses bumper stickers as a jumping off point to go on rant after rant—discussing all the petty little things that are alluded to in Philosophy 100 lectures across the country but for the sake of keeping academic tenor are rarely brought out into the full light. Instead of using bumper stickers as an opportunity to elevate discussion, Bowen swings the door wide open and mocks, stereotypes, and arrogantly dismisses any idea that he doesn’t hold. Bowen’s distain for anyone who may practice (or even respect) religious traditions is particularly dogmatic. Ironically, I know dozens of religious fundamentalists who are not only much more thoughtful than he asserts, they’re more thoughtful than this book.

I was hoping to find a funny and light-hearted approach to philosophy that I could incorporate into my ethics classes. Instead, other than the funny, sarcastic, and counter-cultural bumper stickers that I loved, all I found was a philosophy discussion that as biased and deep as the ones my students already get from FOX News and MSNBC. Yuck!

In fairness, this whole book might be a brilliant meta-commentary, ironically showing us how bad critical, academic thought would be if we approached the world with the same self-righteous attitude bumper stickers convey. Sadly, I doubt that was the case. ( )