Ethics of philosophy, contd.
chapter 2 The Archimedean Point
BW returns to dicussion in a question: what can we say to a amoralist? The amoralist might well accept relativism, nihism, etc instead of morality.
If we say sth, can that be served as justification? And will that be listened and accepted?
Comment:We can imagine a man being exposed to fact while not accepting it. And it is certainly hard to expose moral “facts”. If the fact is that simply morality exists and some people behave in it, it is diffcult to serve as a persuadsion of any kind.
Comment: Williams dismissed a lot philosophical arguments in the book to the extent that belief holders might think that BW treated those with disrespect to each’s own right.
However, it could be more important to see the structure in which the question opens up itself and leads us to different philosophical standings.
BW then introduces Nozick’s question: amoralist’s inconsistency，
The moral sceptics’s dilemma: how to make a promise without meaning it.
Plato:power of moral comes from power of reason, but has to made into a force.politics
Considering the state of nonagessiont it may not be possible for all the community but for one to live imorally.
Chapter 3 Well being
Chapter 4 Practical reason
Chapter 5 Styles of ethical theory.
In refuting positve ethical theory.
Utilitarianism: a form derived from consequentialism and welfarism, however has a unlimited subject concern and brings the question that why one conecern’s one’s own child instead of others’.
Contractual: Concerns Rawls, which has a moral basis and influence.
Original Point in which people choose social principles behind a veil of ignorance.
- each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compativbel with a simler libety to others.
2.Inequalitys are to a to greatest benefits and least advantages and b attaches to offices open to all under condition of fair equality of opportunity,