What if the pandemic wasn’t just a shared misfortune, but a spotlight on injustice that should change how we think about politics, cooperation, and truth?
My links: https://linktr.ee/frictionphilosophy.
1. Guest
Vittorio Bufacchi is senior lecturer of philosophy at University College Cork.
2. Interview Summary
Vittorio Bufacchi frames the conversation around why he wrote Everything Must Change: Philosophical Lessons from Lockdown and what philosophy is for in a crisis. Pushing back on G. W. F. Hegel’s “Owl of Minerva”-style picture (philosophy arriving only after events), he describes his own approach as practical “puzzle solving”: using philosophical analysis to make sense of unfolding events and to help guide action, not merely to interpret history after the fact. He also emphasizes “public philosophy”—writing for non-specialists by expressing core ideas without technical jargon so that ordinary readers can follow and use them.
A major thread is the book’s organizing distinction between COVID as “misfortune” versus “injustice,” and why that framing matters for what we do next. Bufacchi argues that treating the pandemic as mere bad luck encourages a “back to normal” attitude—whereas the evidence shows it exposed and intensified pre-existing structural inequalities, with disproportionate harms falling on already vulnerable groups (including poorer people, ethnic minorities, and women). He uses this lens to discuss how societies implicitly rank people’s value—especially the elderly—connecting the pandemic’s treatment of seniors to Cicero’s reflections on old age and to the idea that we too often equate worth with economic productivity (he even cites Anthony Fauci as a counterexample to age-based dismissal).
From there, the interview develops a more constructive agenda: the pandemic’s lessons point toward cooperation, better politics, and stronger epistemic habits. Drawing on Thomas Hobbes, Bufacchi argues that even if we start from self-interest, it still rationally pushes us toward cooperation—illustrated by vaccination as a shared sacrifice with both local and global stakes. He connects that cooperative ideal to worries about populism and “post-truth,” urging a healthy skepticism that checks sources rather than dismissing facts, and even suggesting earlier philosophy education as training in critical analysis. He contrasts political leadership styles by praising New Zealand (and Jacinda Ardern) versus failures he associates with leaders like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson; and he also notes that crises can worsen hidden harms, pointing to rises in domestic violence during lockdowns and tying this to his broader conception of violence as violations of a person’s integrity. The discussion closes on civic responsibility: if we need a capable state, citizens also have duties to sustain it (including, straightforwardly, paying taxes) and to participate responsibly in democratic life.
3. Interview Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
00:46 - Motivations for writing the book
08:11 - Relevance of philosophy
11:44 - Making philosophy accessible
13:56 - Misfortune vs. injustice
26:39 - COVID and seniors
36:50 - Hobbes and history recurring
45:29 - Populism
55:41 - Post-truth
1:01:45 - Experts
1:05:55 - Teaching philosophy
1:08:59 - Violence
1:17:26 - Irrationality of voters
1:32:02 - States
1:40:32 - Who this book is for
1:45:02 - Conclusion
