P.S. If you don’t like the Bernard Williams stuff, I’d love to hear your quick thoughts on why.
He is a divisive figure, especially in Oxford philosophy circles. But Parfit was correct to take him seriously.
His book “Ethics & The Limits of Philosophy” is often recommended as the place to start.
My main hesitation on this would be that I never really figured out how the difference between plausible meta-ethical theories was decision relevant.(I’m not sure if that counts as not liking it though—still interesting!)
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
P.S. If you don’t like the Bernard Williams stuff, I’d love to hear your quick thoughts on why.
He is a divisive figure, especially in Oxford philosophy circles. But Parfit was correct to take him seriously.
His book “Ethics & The Limits of Philosophy” is often recommended as the place to start.
My main hesitation on this would be that I never really figured out how the difference between plausible meta-ethical theories was decision relevant.(I’m not sure if that counts as not liking it though—still interesting!)