[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 Necessity
in 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
“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/
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.
Is there any talk of getting Parfit on the podcast?
No talk, but it did cross my mind…
That would be wonderful. Parfit is, arguably, the most important ethicist alive.