Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy

As I see it, the thesis of this book can be put succinctly thus: while ethical philosophy can help us explore different ways to think about ethical problems, it cannot justify why anyone should be moral. Why? Because any justification for morality - moral rules maximize overall well-being, they are part of a social contract all rational people would agree to, they spring from our natural moral sentiments - will only appeal to people who already want to be moral (to maximize overall well-being, do what rational people would accept, etc).The first part of the book has Williams broadly outlining this thesis and giving examples of failed attempts (in his eyes, and I agree) to justify morality without presupposing it. Aristotle justified being virtuous because being virtuous would lead to the human happiness that comes from humans fulfilling their nature (teleology) as humans. But, Williams asks, why should anyone care about doing those specific things Aristotle suggests would help us act in accordance with our nature and purpose (particularly, if they don't see that as what they want to do)? Kant tries to justify morality on grounds of reason, suggesting that categorical imperatives are duties that we should do in order to be consistently rational. But, Williams notes, Kant really can't justify morality to anyone who does not want to be consistently rational, or is not going in already willing to let rationality bind their moral actions. The utilitarians attempt to justify morality by appealing to maximization of overall happiness/well-being. Williams has several problems with this, the biggest of which is the question of whether the impartiality utilitarianism requires is something that humans can do, and have any non-question-begging reason to do. Williams is not optimistic that any attempt to justify morality in a way that doesn't propose a commitment to morality can work.To be honest, chapters 1-5 (as described above) and chapter 10 (which summarizes Williams's view) are the bang for the buck. There is a chapter on linguistic philosophy and the error Williams sees in supposing that analyzing what moral language means will actually offer any help to figuring out how to justify morality. There are further chapters on why analogizing ethics to science (and the hope that philosophic discourse will lead to a gradual consensus-building as is hoped in science) can lead us astray, as well as a chapter arguing that relativism doesn't seem to be a great answer either, largely because we do have a sense that philosophy CAN do something for us, just not justify the (Williams's phrase) the 'peculiar institution' of morality.This book, while an absolute torture to read stylistically-speaking, is a gem of a book. Williams's reasoning is quite strong and his ability to articulate what I am sure many a confused undergraduate sitting through a philosophy class intuits is quite stunning. (It is too bad a book like this is too poorly written to be profitably read by said undergraduates, as the book does demand a fair amount of background knowledge in ethics and a ton of patience.)With this, I personally would recommend the similar views of Alisdair MacIntryre ( After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Third Edition  and, to a degree, Richard Taylor ( Good and Evil (Great Minds Series) ). Both take a view similar to Williams's that moral philosophy took a wrong turn when it began questing for unbending moral rules that bind us by sheer force of Reason or some other argument that need not assume moral commitments to get going. (Though MacIntyre and Taylor are virtue ethicists, a view that Williams argues well against in the present book.)ANYONE who is interested in ethical philosophy really should read this, though. Agree or not, Williams gives us something to strong to grapple with.

A beautiful account of Bernard Williams' ethical thought.

Very dense material.

This review is about the hardback version: format only. I was excited to purchase this book based on the reviews and my interest in philosophy. I picked hardback given that I thought this could be a volume to go back to repeatedly in the future. Despite the steep $100 price tag, I figured it would likely be a good investment. However, I was surprised and disappointed by the small dimensions -- think of a pocketbook novel, but not as thick -- and the tiny print crammed onto each page. Really not sure what the publisher was thinking. For this price I thought I'd get something closer to textbook size. I'll send it back to Amazon for a refund and give it a try on my Kindle instead.

I'm reading this with C Korsgard's "Sources of Normativity". Williams is harder work to read, but worth while. I think it wil take a while for the Logical Positivist approach to be returned to a smaller profile.

Great book.

Williams maintains his high standard of writing.

The item is in a good condition without any failure and this arrived just the date indicated by the sender. Everything is OK.A very interesting reading in philosophy.

great book living up to my execptations. It arrived at the correct time, so i cant complain, just love it.

Great book

Purchased as a gift. All arrived on time and as described. Good introduction to an interesting area of study.