Thinking of Answers: Questions in the Philosophy of Everyday Life
A. C. Grayling
Language: English
Pages: 352
ISBN: 0802719724
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
In his acclaimed columns in the London Times and Prospect, A. C. Grayling often responds to provocative questions posed by editors and readers. These questions serve as the basis for the essays in Thinking of Answers, among them searching examinations of the following:
· Are human beings especially prone to self-deception?
· If beauty existed only in the eye of the beholder, would that make it an unimportant quality?
· Are human rights political?
· Can ethics be derived from evolution by natural selection?
· If both sides in a conflict passionately believe theirs is a just cause, does this mean the idea of justice is empty?
· Does being happy make us good? And does being good make us happy?
As in his previous books on philosophy for the general public, including Meditations for the Humanist and Life, Sex and Ideas, rather than presenting a set of categorical answers, Grayling offers suggestions for how to think about every aspect of the question at hand and arrive at one's own conclusion. Nobody can read Thinking of Answers without being fully engaged, for Grayling challenges with his intellect and inspires with his humanity.
magazine called ‘Grayling’s Question’ (a title chosen by the magazine’s editor) I responded to philosophical conundrums sent in by readers, and in a column in The Times I commented on questions prevalent in the atmosphere of public concern each week. In other places, such as the New Scientist, the Dubliner magazine, the Guardian comment section, and elsewhere, the questions to which I responded were implicit: but there too the task was to think of what might contribute to answering them, or at
is possible. Moreover, for the entire span of history between the Greek city-states and the nineteenth century, it was Plato’s hostile view of democracy that prevailed: which was that democracy is no better than ochlocracy – that is, mob rule. Giving government to the ignorant and self-interested mob, said Plato, is what ruined Athens and is anyway irrational, for the state should be run by the most intelligent and able – which meant aristocracy, ‘rule by the best’. Aristocracy has since come to
considerations, is ‘categorical’ as opposed to hypothetical; it is about intrinsic questions of right and wrong, the good and the bad, obligation and duty, consequences and intentions, as these apply in our conduct and relationships, where the right and the good are under consideration in themselves and not merely as instrumental to some non-moral goal such as profit, corporate image, or the like. But ethics includes morality; it is broader in scope than morality, but morality is an integral
long-suffering maiden aunt martyring herself for others is, subconsciously or in secret, greatly enjoying herself. But there is, to use a shop-worn phrase, a third way in the argument. This is to domicile other-regarding and other-supporting actions in a form of acceptable self-interest described in debates about moral psychology as ‘enlightened’. Simply put, agents recognise that benefits accrue to themselves in the longer run if at their own expense they benefit others in the shorter run. A
hypocrisy. Parental Rights Is there a ‘right’ to have more children than one can feed and care for? And, if so, does it create a duty on the rest of us to feed and care for them? According to one familiar outlook, one does not have a right but a duty to have children, whether or not one can provide for them. The Old Testament injunction to ‘go forth and multiply’ is held by Catholic moral theology to be trumped by St Paul’s teaching on the preferability of celibacy, but still incumbent on