‘Morality: an Introduction to Ethics’ is not an introduction. It is a critical survey of the field of moral philosophy (as it existed in the Sixties) that none but a philosophy student or unusually sophisticated general reader could hope to gain from reading.

Williams’s verbose and stilted prose overloads the brain. Like in German, the meaning of his sentences is often delayed until you have reached the end, which is exacerbated by his copious parentheticals and qualifying remarks. Williams is the type of person to say, ‘This raises two questions (though of course there may be others)’ - which is pedantic and distracts the reader from the main point. Here is an extract from a page chosen at random:

‘Nor - though this is more contestable - is it clear that ‘well-being’ in this connection can be identified with happiness. Certainly if we think (as the English language, as it now is, rather encourages us to think) that contentment is a sufficient, though not a necessary, condition of happiness, it will not do for the present purpose; we must be able to recognise as moral views (though cynics will think them mistaken) outlooks which deplore contentment, if secured at too low a level of consciousness and activity.’

On its own, that example is not terribly remarkable, but after pages and pages of the stuff - each sub-clause introducing further uncertainty to difficult philosophy - it becomes exhausting. It’s sometimes said that philosophy is difficult to read because there is no other way to introduce radically novel ideas. But the ideas in this book could have been made far more accessible without compromising them one bit.

The difficulty is not simply the fault of the language. There is also an air of disregard for anyone who is not already familiar with the ideas discussed. Complicated theories are frequently introduced in the same sentence that they are dismissed - often disdainfully, e.g. as being ‘absurd’ or ‘idiotic’. There is no obvious structure to the book, and certainly no attempt to help the reader by summarising. It simply meanders through various topics, ending abruptly.

All that said, Williams is a celebrated philosopher, and there is no doubt that once you have extracted his meaning, the ideas are very deep.

This book is on the Goodreads list of "1000 Books Every Christian Should Read (Besides the Bible)". I don't know if it's addition to the only 618 books that have so far made it on to the list is meant to be serious, or is one of the obvious blasphemers having snuck in and added it. I hope it's serious, that some Christian saw this book, picked it up, read the chapter about God and morality, and swallowed the argument that if one believes in God, and can logically make sense of some kind of ethical system out of the whole concept, and one lives their life only in order to please this god and not be punished in the afterlife than one may be acting like a good person (or not), but one is not acting morally.

Thus Christians are not moral if they only rely on religion to guide their ethical practices.

I don't know if I actually agree with all of William's conclusions, but he does a nice job of setting up the weaknesses of competing systems of morality, and added a couple of more logical tools to my mental toolbox for seeing through bullshit.

The critique of utilitarianism, along with his writings elsewhere is daunting. His discussion of amoralism is thin and psychologically uninteresting. Solid discussion of relativism. Not a good intro text at all though.

Read this as part of my ongoing material collection for my end of degree dissertation about morality and children’s literature. I was promised an “introduction to morality” but this book is more “an introduction to an introduction to morality”, because a lot of the points discussed here aren’t actually the foundations of moral thought, but sort of thought experiments. The only chapters I found remotely useful were the first and last ones, as they’re the only ones that define actual facets of morality, instead of a loose collection of ideas. Not sure if maybe my topic of interest was too niche for this to be useful, or if it’s just not that good as a moral instructive text.

Not a good introduction to ethics, though I regularly teach parts of it. A good framing for ethics. Delightfully Humean. It is a bright spot in 20th century ethics, and reveals just how bad most of 20th century ethics was.

Bernard Williams's brief introduction of morality is easily my favorite on the subject. He's a wise and articulate guide, considering briefly but with measurable depth the issues with thinking about morality in general, contemporary conventional moralizing fallacies, and the potential goals of moral reasoning. When theories of morality generalize, he reminds us of the tremendous breadth and variegated nature of human experience. When theories become too reductive, he steps back and looks skillfully at problems of coherence and consistency. His motto at the introduction guides his thinking in general: that one should, through and through, be more concerned with moral phenomena themselves instead of strictly theorizing.

The average chapter length is about ten pages long. This work has got much to say about the contemporary scene, despite being decades old. The newcomer to moral philosophy will find his first few chapters of particular interest, in his devastating critiques of subjectivism and relativism. Those familiar with the field will find his criticisms of utilitarianism enlightening. Recommended for everyone interested in reading about moral philosophy.

As far as essayesque introduction to ethics goes, this book is a fine read. It discusses major milestones in thinking about ethics, and presents a handful of critiques to each. The critiques themselves are not polished or equal in quality by any means, but it's not what this book is about. It states in the introduction that its purpose is to sketch a context for thinking about ethics, and to sketch it in style. And it delivers on this promise.

brillant as always

When opening this second hand book I found that there were bright red pen marks (underlines) from pages 3 to 25, then replaced by use of a violent black biro for pages 26 to 37, then after that the remaining pages appeared unscathed. I figured it would probably be a challenge for my humble pencil lines to be noticed among the marks made by the previous owner but never mind. As usual I'll try my best not to pay attention to the lines and put more emphasis on previously highlighted text, but instead try to see which points jump out at me personally. But it is sometimes interesting to see what caught the eye and was deemed important by another reader...

Anyway this was a nice short essay that I read this morning in the warmth of the conservatory. Williams made good points throughout without massively presenting his own theory on anything, but it was enjoyable to read.

I was also amused by his frequent use of the word 'absurd' (used mainly to describe relativism).