What do you think?
Rate this book
New Waves in Metaethics (New Waves in Philosophy) [Paperback] [2010] 1 Ed. Michael Brady
Acknowledgements Series Editors' Preface Notes on Contributors Introduction; M.Brady Non-Naturalist Ethical Realism; W.Fitzpatrick Naturalistic Metaethics at Half Price; J.Gert In Defence of Moral Error Theory; J.Olson The Myth of Moral Fictionalism; T.Cuneo & S.Christy Metaethics and the Philosophy of Language; M.Chrisman How not to Avoid Wishful Thinking; M.Schroeder Internal Reasons and the Motivating Intuition; J.Markovits Beyond Wrong The Buck-Passing Account of Value; U.Heuer A Wrong Turn to Reasons?; P.Väyrynen Shmagency Revisited; D.Enoch The Authority of Social Norms; N.Southwood Moral Epistemology; A.Hills Aesthetics, Objectivity and Particularism; S.Mckeever & M.Ridge Index
Unknown Binding
First published November 18, 2010
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 10, 2017
Ok, this was very unsatisfactory experience. The book is essentialy collection of papers from different authors with varying levels of interestingness.
It the begining book starts with paper that should "answer Gibbards objection to non-naturalism".
Yeah cool. I thought But instead of this, most of the paper was concetrated on refuting (almost) non-explained Gibbard's system (from 2003 so I was totaly unable to apreciate it, since I know only older Gibbard's theory). And through book is not much better.
Some papers were indeed interesting (I enjoyed those about epistemological problems of metaethics and there was cool paper defending error-theory) but most of them suffered from some of those condition:
1)Style of writing was confusing, it was unclear what is being said
2)It was too hard to understand
3)It assumed reader's knowledge I do not posses
4)The theme of paper was too abstract, too philosophical to catch attention to someone who's just interested in metaethics and not expert.
5)Were written in attacking or too defensive way, so it was uncomfortable to read and some arguments seemed unfair and invalid. Sometimes I felt that argument was "so your theory implies A. But A seems to ordinary man like something wierd to say. So your theory has serious problem", especialy when non-cognitivism was treated.
So to conclude it, althrough they were cool stuff, most of the papers are not suitable for non-expert (due to conditions mentioned above ). And "New waves" is quite misleading name, I would call it "Bunch of semi-random papers from people who think that only their theory is right".
It the begining book starts with paper that should "answer Gibbards objection to non-naturalism".
Yeah cool. I thought But instead of this, most of the paper was concetrated on refuting (almost) non-explained Gibbard's system (from 2003 so I was totaly unable to apreciate it, since I know only older Gibbard's theory). And through book is not much better.
Some papers were indeed interesting (I enjoyed those about epistemological problems of metaethics and there was cool paper defending error-theory) but most of them suffered from some of those condition:
1)Style of writing was confusing, it was unclear what is being said
2)It was too hard to understand
3)It assumed reader's knowledge I do not posses
4)The theme of paper was too abstract, too philosophical to catch attention to someone who's just interested in metaethics and not expert.
5)Were written in attacking or too defensive way, so it was uncomfortable to read and some arguments seemed unfair and invalid. Sometimes I felt that argument was "so your theory implies A. But A seems to ordinary man like something wierd to say. So your theory has serious problem", especialy when non-cognitivism was treated.
So to conclude it, althrough they were cool stuff, most of the papers are not suitable for non-expert (due to conditions mentioned above ). And "New waves" is quite misleading name, I would call it "Bunch of semi-random papers from people who think that only their theory is right".
Displaying 1 of 1 review