Did not finish. Boring.

An excellent book as a critique of modern moral philosophy, which is truly an untenable mess. I wouldn't recommend using as a positive basis for your own thought. Anscombe would be good for that. But this best demonstrates the foolishness of trying to speak of morals without a concept of Divine law and theology to support it; without, the best you can do is ethics.

While I may try to finish this, I will probably have forgotten most of it by then. I may just be lazy, but I really am not following very well. The main gist of the argument is quite simple, and Williams has some very strong views which is very apparent ("... relativism, the anthropologist's heresy, possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced even in moral philosophy." p34). I think my main problem is that I'm still not sure what his definition of morality is, and therefore all his arguments about why something, such as a belief, shows a particular moral view don't really make sense. Of course, I may have just missed this, but am at the moment far too lazy to look for it.

Not exactly an introduction since it dives into very technical language immediately, but it is nevertheless a good primer for people who are already versed in some moral philosophy to understand its broad currents from the 1960s and 70s. He is critical of the excessive abstraction and technicality of analytic moral philosophy which was then contemporary, divorced as he thought it was from real-world examples. This habit has unfortunately continued into the 2020s despite Williams's criticism. Williams does distinguish between metaethics and normative ethics but treats them in conjunction, presenting major problems with moral relativism and moral subjectivisim, as well as utilitarianism. It's a decent book which helped connect some of the earlier metaethics done by Moore and Ayer in the earlier 20th century with later currents of ethical thought - in particular it contains an influential indictment of moral relativism that would influence Martha Nussbaum's opposition to moral relativism in the disputes between feminists and multiculturalists in the 1990s. It doesn't carry any major ideas since it is mainly a book for clarification and refutation. Overall it's a useful response to some key issues of his day, but if you want to understand debates about the ontology of morality there are better places to look than this book, it serving now really only as a historical curiosity.

This is an excellent undergraduate-level introduction to moral thought for two reasons.

First, it is short. At 97 pages, this book can be covered in less than a day.

Second, although some of Williams' own views are discussed, this essay is a lucid, easy to read survey of the major modes of ethical thinking - from amoralist to utilitarian.

If you want to know more about moral philosophy but are not sure where to begin, try here.

(But please note, this is a scholarly essay by one of the greatest minds in 20th Century philosophy. I can't help but think some of the negative reviews were due to folks expecting it would be the History Channel version.)

A good short book on morality. The last chapter on utilitarianism was for me the most interesting. The four outlooks of utilitarianism include first it is non- transcendental, and makes no appeal outside human life, in particular disregarding religious considerations. Second, its basic good happiness is minimally problematic as everyone wants to be happy. Thirdly, moral issues theoretically can be determined by empirical calculations. Lastly, utilitarianism provides a common currency of moral thought. However, different cultures and societies may differ on what they consider happiness resulting in conflict. The problem with utilitarianism is that morality is more than just happiness.

I will just copypaste my personal summary of the book below, made as I read through for easier recall. As a summary of moral concepts, it is frustratingly dense but thankfully short. Williams spends a lot of time saying little, yet manages to condense a good deal of moral philosophy into this book. Nevertheless, a taxing read. 2/5 based on the Goodreads guidelines of "it's ok".

Please feel free to point out if I misunderstood Williams - very likely -.-



coming soon

Refreshing and full of insight.

interesting arguments here if you you take the time to grok them- especially against utilitarianism

Bernard Williams' introduction to moral philosophy examines a number of key theories, including subjectivism, relativism and utilitarianism.

The first chapter is particularly interesting and focuses on the amoralist. Williams argues that a person who "acts for other people", even if only when inclined to do so, is "capable of thinking in terms of others' interests" and that this is enough to render him if not 'moral', certainly on his way to being so. Williams then claims that a person who is never inclined to help others is simply a psychopath whom appalls us - is this always the case? Certain literary figures such as the protagonist of A Clockwork Orange spring to mind as Williams' theory suggests all readers ought to be appalled by him (he has committed atrocious and brutal crimes and does not care for others in the slightest, although he does find great pleasure in listening to Beethoven).

Another fascinating chapter approached what issues the existence of God could pose for morality. Williams argues that one's motives for following the morality of God are either moral or are not; if they are moral there is no need for the addition of God to the equation, and if they are not then they cannot correspond to morality at all. I think it's interesting to consider this in light of Aristotle's skill analogy for the acquiring of moral virtues. Aristotle claimed that as with acquiring a new skill, to acquire a virtue one must practice by following an exemplar (in this case a moral exemplar) before one comes to a fully developed sensitivity towards recognising the appropriate actions to be taken in different situations. Similarly, perhaps being compelled to act morally out of a fear of hell, say, acts as a means of 'practice', culminating in thinking for oneself and acting out of a sense of morality.

my brain just exploded

The writer acknowledges that not all the important topics concerning ethics are treated in his book. The book is not a textbook either and in fact, he does not claim he knows how to write an ethics book. The book is written anyway and he has a way of writing.

First of all, the claim of an amoralist is treated first since the questions asked by those are probably the most fundamental ones. If we agree with an amoralist, no point in going further in this book and also ethics is no concern for us. The way of attacking the amoralist claims is demonstrating the inconsistency in their claims and their way of living.

And then claims of a subjectivist are discussed. According to Williams, if we happen to understand their claims correctly, the claims are either wrong or right but unharmful to the fundamentals of ethics. If a subjectivist claims that every culture has different moral standpoints and each of them are right and therefore, we should respect each of them, then they put themselves in a moral domain, which is inconsistent. If we neglect what they suggest but take the first claim seriously, then they cannot live according to their moral standpoints since the conflicts are the natural result of different moral standpoints. If they aim to look at the all standpoints from a reference frame other than people, then they are mistaken since it is just an illusion.

There are other topics discussed later in this book such as fact-value distinction, goodness, and utilitarianism. He thinks we have good reasons not to readily conclude that fact and value are not linked. He claims that good is not an adjective that can be thought of independently, but it is an integral part of “good X” statement. Without “X”, “good” loses its meaning. And finally, he discusses utilitarianism briefly, and he believes it is inconsistent. He also thinks that a utilitarianist not only acts to maximize the good but also to prevent the bad things from happening by doing the not-the-worst things.

Overall, it was a good book but I will not attempt to define what the “good” here actually means since it involves criteria attached to the book indicating a moral standpoint which opens a way to discuss ethical issues, which, I think, would make this review “uglier”.