The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics

by Clive Hamilton

Rare book

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Psychology

381 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Clive Hamilton AM FRSA is an Australian public intellectual and Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics and the Vice-Chancellor's Chair in Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University. He is a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government, and is the Founder and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He regularly appears in the Australian media and contributes to public policy debates. Hamilton was granted the award of Member of the Order of Australia on 8 June 2009 for "service to public debate and policy development, particularly in the fields of climate change, sustainability and societal trends".


(From Wikipedia.)

Reviews

[Ann-Marie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge on the topic of philosophy is pretty scanty. Therefore, it's entirely possible that much of what was discussed in this book had another level that I was missing. However, about half-way, I couldn't shake the suspicion that there was some literary sleight-of-hand going on. Some statements seemed arrived at with dubious cognitive leaps that had me scratching my head. Whilst there was much that was interesting in this book, the claim that religion wasn't necessary to explain and enforce the human moral code seemed to fall short. This is not to say that I believe religion is necessary for this issue, but I felt as if religion and God were just given different labels here. There was the exhortation that when in doubt as to what is the moral option to take in a situation, that we listen to our internal moral voice that has a link to the "noumenon" and that will give us our answer. So, in order to make a moral judgement, one must aready be connected with that which is moral? In which case, why would we be fumbling around in the first place wondering what the moral option is? There was very little discussion as to what the course of action is for a vast majority of people who, for whatever reason, are very much beholden to their immediate desires of eat-buy-take-sex-react. If the loss of morals and ethics is bemoaned here, there is little concrete advice as to how we dig our way out of the pit. And perhaps that was never the point of this book, but I was left with the feeling that the author really couldn't explain to my satisfaction what the point of secularising ethics achieved in practical terms.

[Tom]

People are strange, when you're a stranger.
Wealth makes us lonely; porno is bad.

[Cody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not too long ago I picked up Clive Hamilton's, Freedom Paradox: Towards A Secular Ethics

I picked it up assuming it would be trash, then I read the preface and was given some hope. The entire point of the book is basically that there must be an objective morality, that we can discover and ground outside the claims of higher authority and secret knowledge presented by religion.

After having finished the book a few weeks ago, I think it is fairly well written and mostly well argued, but I feel like it ultimately fails. It's not enough to recognize that morality must be objective if it's not just relative, you have to account for source of that code. If man is the source, it can't be objective.

Some may argue that if there be no higher authorities, then it would by necessity have to be a man made product. To me, if we accept that and agree that morality is objective, that then would be evidence for god(s), but that's a tangent. Point remains.

I will say, he relies heavily on Kant and Schopenhauer, but draws from a great deal many philosophers. I am fairly familiar with Kant, in a kind of overview grand scheme of things kind of way, but Schopenhauer I'm not at all familiar with other than to be aware that he was a philosopher.

Even though I don't fully endorse the book, and I certainly don't agree with it, I do highly recommend it as an example of modern philosophy that isn't just utter trash.


To be fair to Owen, he does kind of account for this. In what I would call placing morality in something akin to the form of forms. But I'm actually ignoring it, because to me that's bumping up against the claims of secret knowledge of religion he sought to avoid.


Also to be fair, he tries to distinguish it from the "The Good", but I felt it was such a weak argument I've forgotten it. And, if he hadn't of planted the seed of the forms, I probably would have been lost, that to me proves a link.

[paspatel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about a moral theory grounded in the metaphysics of empathy: we all share the same Origin.
There are two types of manifestations of this metaphysical empathy: compassion (ie, care) and the will to justice (ie, fairness).
The ethical position derived from the author’s theory has the grounds to deny moral relativism and theology, and is argued in a compelling way. Unfortunately, the author spends little to no time elaborating on specific guidelines that might arise from his proposed “post-secular ethics.”

[Brendan]

Hamilton borrows a philosophical stance from Schopenhauer, who is similar in many respects to Immanuel Kant and builds a system of Ethics from this. An interesting way to get to a kind of mundane conclusion. He tries to tie the book up with our current consumer culture and it's inherent evils however he doesn't give enough explanation in my opinion to warrant some of the links he creates. Taken from a strictly philosophical standpoint the book was interesting and presented me with a different way of thinking about a subject I had touched little on.

[· · Rating 2 out of 5]

(6 March, 2012)

Showed great promise: interesting subject, well written, clear and concise - then disappointment set in. The digression into noumenon was rather long(-winded), his examples of it seemed tenuous. The book as a whole came uncomfortably close to self-help territory and it felt theistic at times. Hamilton made sense most of the time but he made a few assumptions that I could not, or would not, make.

Caveat lector.

[Simon Mittag · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freedom of choice hasn't made us any happier? Incredible analysis of western society and obviously the authors attempt to build something meaningful on top of Kant, Nietzsche. Read if you are a philosophy enthusiast but maybe not as the first book on the subject. Hard to digest and I often had to pause to think about what the last pages were all about. Definite text book feel with little consideration for accessibility. Don't let this detract you, it's worth it.

[Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! I loved this book. I'm definitely going to read it again. It combines my passions: metaphysics, moral philosophy, frugality, and spirituality. I found it was an absolute pleasure to read especially the introductory chapters. I can see that it could be quite heavy for those unused to philosophical text, but I loved it. One of the best books I've read in ages.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is incredible. It describes our western culture almost too perfectly. This book WILL change your outlook on the current state of our system - if it doesn't then you need to turn your brain on. It hard though to finish the book because every time I get done reading a chapter I have to read it again...its THAT good.

[Nicky Lamond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking. The Freedom Paradox brings together different ways of thinking in a way that helps illuminate them all.

When reading through some of the metaphysics I felt like I was wading through sludge, but it's worth the perseverance as these concepts help to underpin the thesis of the book.

[Catharina Nawangpalupi]

I love reading Hamilton writings, from Growing Fettish, Affluenza and other papers from the Australia Institute.. This is his latest book.. more philosophical thoughts here...

[Elisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought-provoking. Namaste.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read, if flawed at times.

[Deki Napolju · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this but the dissertation on Kantian ethics that falls in the middle was perhaps overly long.

[Keira]

Reading it for an essay & am surprised to find I'm enjoying the thoughts it's engendering.