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!)
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!)