• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

On What Matters–A Recommendation

March 9, 2012 by Law Ware Twitter: @law_ware 5 Comments

[Editor's Note: Lawrence Ware is the guest on our episode on philosophy and race, and we're happy to have him come blog for us.]

Derek Parfit is one of the most important ethicists of our time. I’m sure that his Reasons and Personswill soon challenge Kripke’s Naming and Necessityin the number of philosophy dissertations it has influenced.

It appears that the best was yet to come. On What Mattersis Parfit’s Magnum Opus. Some have argued that this tome (and I mean tome—I skipped the gym and just curled volumes 1 and 2) is the most important work in moral philosophy for over a century. I’m not sure if it deserves that level of prestige, but it certainly is a text that attempts to revolutionize ethical reflection by showing how much seemingly oppositional ethical theories have in common. Parfit is an unapologetic rationalist—an unstylish ethical position in our current philosophical climate. Parfit argues that there does indeed exist objective ethical criteria whereby one may judge an action to be right or wrong. This is not a new position. Many have tried to appeal to a religious authority to argue this point. What makes Parfit unique is that his argument is both convincing and secular. How does he do this? Read the text—you will not be disappointed.

The book is very long—but, as Peter Singer states in his review, one could just read the first 400 pages and walk away with the gist of Parfit’s argument. This is necessary reading for anyone interested in ethics. Highly recommended.

-Law Ware

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Reviewage Tagged With: Derek Parfit, Ethics, philosophy blog

Comments

  1. Ryan says

    March 10, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    “attempts to revolutionize ethical reflection by showing how much seemingly oppositional ethical theories have in common”

    I have to agree with one of the amazon reviewers that this sounds like a moot point, if it weren’t the case then the world should have devolved in to outright chaos long ago. Maybe it needed to be better explicated than it has been so far, but I don’t think anyone’s going to be very surprised by this conclusion.

    “Parfit argues that there does indeed exist objective ethical criteria whereby one may judge an action to be right or wrong. This is not a new position.”

    Nope, but it’s great to hear it being argued in the face of so much postmodern secular relativism and theological regressions, and I imagine he’ll have done a more compelling job of it than the likes of Sam Harris.

    Somewhat related, the Repugnant Conclusion makes for a very strong argument against what I find to be a quite common unconscious folk belief in ethical utilitarianism (actually, one that Sam Harris readily adopts himself now that I think about it). It probably won’t convince anybody to uproot their entire life, but maybe it will get them thinking a little bit harder if they haven’t considered metaethics very much in the past.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

    Reply
  2. Law Ware Twitter: @law_ware says

    March 10, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Ryan, you’re right–praxiologically. However, philosophers differ greatly in regard to normative ethical reflection. For Parfit to argue for objective ethical truth from secular, rationalist grounds is quite novel.

    And Harris cannot hold a candle to Parfit–you’re right about that.

    Reply
  3. Billie Pritchett says

    April 2, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Is there any talk of getting Parfit on the podcast?

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      April 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm

      No talk, but it did cross my mind…

      Reply
      • Law Ware Twitter: @law_ware says

        April 2, 2012 at 10:48 pm

        That would be wonderful. Parfit is, arguably, the most important ethicist alive.

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Theo on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two)
  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in