What do you think?
Rate this book
By Peter Kreeft - A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews With an Absolutist (1999-10-16) [Paperback]
Peter Kreeft lets an attractive, honest, and funny relativist interview a "Muslim fundamentalist" absolutist so as not to stack the dice personally for absolutism. In a series of personal interviews, every conceivable argument the "sassy Black feminist" reporter Libby gives against absolutism is simply and clearly refuted, and none of the many arguments for moral absolutism is refuted.
Paperback
First published October 1, 1999
57 people are currently reading
654 people want to read
About the author
Peter Kreeft
196 books1,067 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
June 20, 2012
This book is typical Peter Kreeft: it couldn't be boring if it tried. The book gives ten or so arguments, for and against, moral relativism. The moral absolutist is played by a Muslim. The relativist by a liberal feminist.
THE ARGUMENTS
Ben Isa argues that relativism is the most serious crisis to civilisation. He documents from history that all civilizations have presupposed some absolute moral code. Any civilization that operated on relativism, he argues, commits suicide.
The key arguments, that I have found most persuasive:
1) relativism has an absolutist premise in it: it argues that it is *good* to be relativist and *bad* to be absolutist. These are normative, absolutist judgments which are not consistent with the relativist claim.
2) The notion of progress demands an absolutist standard. If there is no absolute standard, and values are relative, how can a society make progress? To what is it progressing?
3) If relativism is true, then we must condemn men like Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, and abolitionists--people who are usually championed by relativists (I would have chosen different examples, but that's beside the point). They are known as cultural prophets, calling the evils of a society to account. But do you see the problem? If a society is the source and norm for values, and a society determines what is right and wrong (like slavery and the oppression of women), then who is the prophet to blame them? All of the cultural prophets have assumed a moral law to which society must be judged. This moral law, obviously, is absolutist.
4) Kreeft's arguments from the history of philosophy were quite impressive.
EVALUATION
Pros: the book was extremely well-written. It was very insightful and covered the standard arguments used in the debates. Some pages were so good one had to stand and applaud.
Cons: his choice of a Muslim will no doubt bother some readers. I, personally, would have chosen a different hero. True, Islamic morals are absolute, but if consistent, they look a lot different than biblical revelation. 2) Kreeft sold the farm on evolution. He masterfully refuted it and then in the next paragraph affirmed it. I know what he is getting at but this is a poor way to phrase it.
THE ARGUMENTS
Ben Isa argues that relativism is the most serious crisis to civilisation. He documents from history that all civilizations have presupposed some absolute moral code. Any civilization that operated on relativism, he argues, commits suicide.
The key arguments, that I have found most persuasive:
1) relativism has an absolutist premise in it: it argues that it is *good* to be relativist and *bad* to be absolutist. These are normative, absolutist judgments which are not consistent with the relativist claim.
2) The notion of progress demands an absolutist standard. If there is no absolute standard, and values are relative, how can a society make progress? To what is it progressing?
3) If relativism is true, then we must condemn men like Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, and abolitionists--people who are usually championed by relativists (I would have chosen different examples, but that's beside the point). They are known as cultural prophets, calling the evils of a society to account. But do you see the problem? If a society is the source and norm for values, and a society determines what is right and wrong (like slavery and the oppression of women), then who is the prophet to blame them? All of the cultural prophets have assumed a moral law to which society must be judged. This moral law, obviously, is absolutist.
4) Kreeft's arguments from the history of philosophy were quite impressive.
EVALUATION
Pros: the book was extremely well-written. It was very insightful and covered the standard arguments used in the debates. Some pages were so good one had to stand and applaud.
Cons: his choice of a Muslim will no doubt bother some readers. I, personally, would have chosen a different hero. True, Islamic morals are absolute, but if consistent, they look a lot different than biblical revelation. 2) Kreeft sold the farm on evolution. He masterfully refuted it and then in the next paragraph affirmed it. I know what he is getting at but this is a poor way to phrase it.
September 1, 2011
Kreeft structures his book around a series of interviews with a black moral relativist and activist, Libby, and a Muslim absolutionist and professor, 'Isa. The logic is solid and the interviews are entertaining. A must-read for anyone with philosophical or religious interests.
December 19, 2016
Entertaining, enlightening... and hella annoying. It's the transcription of an interview between a liberal journalist and a Muslim professor on the nature of relativism vs absolutism. It's entertaining because of their interplay, enlightening because of the professor and annoying because of the liberal journalist. Even though she agrees with the logical refutation of relativism she refuses to accept it as truth... because it isn't her truth.
Mein gott.
Absolutely fascinating look at where morals come from and why the relative stance is a recipe for disaster, highly recommend it.
Mein gott.
Absolutely fascinating look at where morals come from and why the relative stance is a recipe for disaster, highly recommend it.
July 29, 2016
Kreeft is always an interesting writer. The most interesting problem the relativist faces is the blatant self refutation every time he (she, in this case) either states a proposition or attempts to refute the absolutist. Relativism must depend on absolute truth in order to make its case. It collapses under its own weight.
This book goes far deeper than simply its self-refutation. I really enjoyed this book.
This book goes far deeper than simply its self-refutation. I really enjoyed this book.
July 13, 2009
Pretty good. The believability of the characters wasn't as strong as in Socrates Meets Jesus. But some great points are made very clearly.
February 29, 2012
Content is great, but the "interview" style of presentation was a little weird.
March 30, 2017
This book gives a fictive debate where the author creates an imaginary Socratic dialogue between two characters, a black feminist named Libby and a conservative Middle Eastern man named 'Isa who debate over the course of eleven imaginary interviews over the legitimacy of relativism and absolutism. The interviews contain as their subject matter such delightful subjects as the importance of moral relativism and its threat to salvation, what is moral relativism (there are at least four strains of relativism), the history of relativism, the data that allows us to make a judgment on it from history and experience, the arguments (and rebuttals) for relativism from self-esteem and cultural relativity; social conditioning, freedom, and tolerance; and situations, intentions, projection, and evolution; arguments for moral absolutism, the philosophical assumptions of absolutism, and the cause and cure of relativism. If you like reading a lot about the philosophical arguments over ultimate and absolute truth [1] and you have a high tolerance for imaginary dialogues where the author plays both sides of a topic in order to encourage a particular worldview and belief, you may enjoy this book, although it made for some deeply unsettling reading for me, and it was probably a mistake on my part to read this book mainly at night.
The reason why this book was so deeply unsettling is that the author stacks the deck against the absolutist by making him an unappealing and possibly Muslim man and then has him completely demolish the arguments of his progressive interlocutor in a very unpleasant way. The arguments themselves take on rather unpleasant argumentative angles, and the way that the author tries to make this less unappealing is by assuring the reader that the two people got along better while fishing and enjoying the beach (imaginary conversations not recorded in the book) than they did in the testy and even nasty debate between them. The author also points out, in a way that does not sound appealing, that the two of them met together while staying in the same house in the late 1970's with a few other imaginary (?) people that the author threatens to write about as part of an allegorical work about the big tent of Catholicism. It is hard to imagine this book being less authentic and less appealing despite the strong interest of its subject material.
Somehow the author managed to take the subject of defending moral absolutes and turned it into a ugly and nasty argument that would be pretty easy to imagine taking place in real life, only without the relativists admitting their errors. This book also manages another interesting feat, and that is demonstrating that the mere admission of moral absolutes is not very far along the path to salvation. The book seems to spend its entire two-hundred pages or so on second things rather than first things. The arguments over philosophy, over the misuse of Occam's Razor and the evils of nominalism and the foolish giveaway that Kant made in order to preserve the view of some sort of moral absolute in his own philosophical worldview all have the air of unreality. After all, neither of the people in the argument are godly or Christian people. The author may want to build a big tent of moral absolutists to join with the Catholics in defending a culture of life, and in this he apparently is furthering the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. However, this task does nothing concerning salvation, as these people are not converted, not obedient to God's ways, and are spending their time arguing about philosophy and seeking to be wise in the world's eyes. This book is a misstep, sadly. It is intelligent and learned, but for all that still a misstep.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
The reason why this book was so deeply unsettling is that the author stacks the deck against the absolutist by making him an unappealing and possibly Muslim man and then has him completely demolish the arguments of his progressive interlocutor in a very unpleasant way. The arguments themselves take on rather unpleasant argumentative angles, and the way that the author tries to make this less unappealing is by assuring the reader that the two people got along better while fishing and enjoying the beach (imaginary conversations not recorded in the book) than they did in the testy and even nasty debate between them. The author also points out, in a way that does not sound appealing, that the two of them met together while staying in the same house in the late 1970's with a few other imaginary (?) people that the author threatens to write about as part of an allegorical work about the big tent of Catholicism. It is hard to imagine this book being less authentic and less appealing despite the strong interest of its subject material.
Somehow the author managed to take the subject of defending moral absolutes and turned it into a ugly and nasty argument that would be pretty easy to imagine taking place in real life, only without the relativists admitting their errors. This book also manages another interesting feat, and that is demonstrating that the mere admission of moral absolutes is not very far along the path to salvation. The book seems to spend its entire two-hundred pages or so on second things rather than first things. The arguments over philosophy, over the misuse of Occam's Razor and the evils of nominalism and the foolish giveaway that Kant made in order to preserve the view of some sort of moral absolute in his own philosophical worldview all have the air of unreality. After all, neither of the people in the argument are godly or Christian people. The author may want to build a big tent of moral absolutists to join with the Catholics in defending a culture of life, and in this he apparently is furthering the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. However, this task does nothing concerning salvation, as these people are not converted, not obedient to God's ways, and are spending their time arguing about philosophy and seeking to be wise in the world's eyes. This book is a misstep, sadly. It is intelligent and learned, but for all that still a misstep.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
April 30, 2019
A good resource which summarizes all the important things I needed a brushing up on in metaphysics, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, modern philosophy, epistemology, logic, etc. The dialogue format was a bit annoying at times, but allowed for some pretty succinct explanations/arguments.
August 6, 2017
The premise is of course a great one--a complete refutation of moral relativism. Peter Kreeft succeeds in demolishing moral relativism through a series of fake interviews between an imaginary Muslim professor and an imaginary feminist journalist. He presents much of the sound logic and reason needed to expose moral relativism's weaknesses and flaws, and to highlight a good portion of the strengths of moral absolutism. Unfortunately, but as is to be expected coming from a religious apologist, he couches all his defense of moral absolutism in dogmatic religious mysticism. It's almost off-putting how he can write his character defending moral absolutism as engaging in the sound and thorough logic necessary for disproving any merits of moral relativism, then suddenly leaping into a dark-age metaphysics proclaiming God as the one source and creator of all morality. There's something of a disconnect.
Moral absolutism has long been a religious-rooted position, so this isn't surprising. It's startling though that one can practice such sound logic to debunk the myth of moral relativism, and then throw that logic out the window to proclaim another myth as the pillar on which moral absolutism must stand. He does correctly state, toward the end, that even atheists can be moral absolutists. He's arguing toward the right goal, but coming from the wrong side. After reading through the first few chapters ("interviews") I was under the impression the entire book would be a poorly presented religious text.
Fortunately, it was not, and the majority was a profound bulldozing of a popular but silly notion, a clear and salient explanation of the differences between morals and values, a breakdown of how moral relativism is an incomplete, contradictory, and ultimately useless philosophical position, sandwiched between some poorly thought out religious rants, often which confused (or intentionally mis-portrayed) benign and morally neutral acts as something sinister, and the occasionally embarrassing circularly logical reasoning for God. This is the problem in using religion to champion moral absolutism, and why authors like Sam Harris will likely do more to usher in the recognition of moral absolutism's strength than religious scholars will be able to. You need a better agent than an invisible, fantastical entity to anchor morality to. It cannot be anchored to something that is highly questionable and easy to doubt.
All else aside, it was an enjoyable read and full of many almost-common-sense bits of thought that are not as common as we may wish, presenting a strong, if flawed, case against a futile ideological stance.
Moral absolutism has long been a religious-rooted position, so this isn't surprising. It's startling though that one can practice such sound logic to debunk the myth of moral relativism, and then throw that logic out the window to proclaim another myth as the pillar on which moral absolutism must stand. He does correctly state, toward the end, that even atheists can be moral absolutists. He's arguing toward the right goal, but coming from the wrong side. After reading through the first few chapters ("interviews") I was under the impression the entire book would be a poorly presented religious text.
Fortunately, it was not, and the majority was a profound bulldozing of a popular but silly notion, a clear and salient explanation of the differences between morals and values, a breakdown of how moral relativism is an incomplete, contradictory, and ultimately useless philosophical position, sandwiched between some poorly thought out religious rants, often which confused (or intentionally mis-portrayed) benign and morally neutral acts as something sinister, and the occasionally embarrassing circularly logical reasoning for God. This is the problem in using religion to champion moral absolutism, and why authors like Sam Harris will likely do more to usher in the recognition of moral absolutism's strength than religious scholars will be able to. You need a better agent than an invisible, fantastical entity to anchor morality to. It cannot be anchored to something that is highly questionable and easy to doubt.
All else aside, it was an enjoyable read and full of many almost-common-sense bits of thought that are not as common as we may wish, presenting a strong, if flawed, case against a futile ideological stance.
December 28, 2013
This book is a wonderful defense of common sense. The vast majority of people understand intuitively that there is an objective difference between “right” and “wrong,” but have not spent enough time thinking about their intuitions to mount an adequate defense when challenged by those least common sensical of all people – college professors. Enter Peter Kreeft, the Ivory Tower’s resident dissident, to provide an apologetic handbook for absolute moral truth in a culture that is increasingly turning against it.
The book is formatted as a series of interviews with 'Isa Ben Adam, an Arab scholar and defender of moral absolutism. Conducting the interviews is Libby Rawls, a feminist African-American journalist and self-professed moral relativist. The dialogue format of the book, besides being a modern novelty, is also very helpful. When I was in college, I heard Dr. Kreeft deliver his argument against moral relativism in person, and since I wasn’t well-versed in philosophy, it confused the heck out of me. The interview format remedies that. It allows Libby to raise intelligent questions and objections, and for 'Isa to respond with clear explanations. It is very straightforward and beginner-friendly, as are all the books by Kreeft I’ve had the pleasure of reading.
The two characters are a bit mismatched, one being a mere journalist and the other being a trained philosopher. But Kreeft seems to be giving a fair hearing to absolutism’s serious objectors nonetheless. The purpose of the book is not to lay out a full-fledged philosophical debate, but to present a particular, underrepresented side of the argument. It is just an “interview,” after all. Libby seems to be there to serve the purpose of grounding the discussion so that non-philosophers can know what’s going on, not to be an equal philosophical sparring partner.
My biggest criticism is the characterization of 'Isa, who is supposedly a “Muslim fundamentalist,” but who talks an awful lot about C.S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, and sounds an awful lot like Peter Kreeft. He name-drops Muhammad a few times, but just to say that the society he built was more stable that one built upon relativism. 'Isa should stop flirting with Christianity and convert already.
No matter what your affiliation, you should read this book.
The book is formatted as a series of interviews with 'Isa Ben Adam, an Arab scholar and defender of moral absolutism. Conducting the interviews is Libby Rawls, a feminist African-American journalist and self-professed moral relativist. The dialogue format of the book, besides being a modern novelty, is also very helpful. When I was in college, I heard Dr. Kreeft deliver his argument against moral relativism in person, and since I wasn’t well-versed in philosophy, it confused the heck out of me. The interview format remedies that. It allows Libby to raise intelligent questions and objections, and for 'Isa to respond with clear explanations. It is very straightforward and beginner-friendly, as are all the books by Kreeft I’ve had the pleasure of reading.
The two characters are a bit mismatched, one being a mere journalist and the other being a trained philosopher. But Kreeft seems to be giving a fair hearing to absolutism’s serious objectors nonetheless. The purpose of the book is not to lay out a full-fledged philosophical debate, but to present a particular, underrepresented side of the argument. It is just an “interview,” after all. Libby seems to be there to serve the purpose of grounding the discussion so that non-philosophers can know what’s going on, not to be an equal philosophical sparring partner.
My biggest criticism is the characterization of 'Isa, who is supposedly a “Muslim fundamentalist,” but who talks an awful lot about C.S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, and sounds an awful lot like Peter Kreeft. He name-drops Muhammad a few times, but just to say that the society he built was more stable that one built upon relativism. 'Isa should stop flirting with Christianity and convert already.
No matter what your affiliation, you should read this book.
April 29, 2011
Peter John Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College, a prolific writer and an engaging educator and public speaker. My first exposure to his writings came through his book A Shorter Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which was first systematic introduction to the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Kreeft is definitely strongly influenced by Thomistic thought, and this "Refutation" reflects some of that, as the dedication too strongly implies.
The book is structured as a series of dialogues between Libby Rawls, a prototypical modern liberal relativist, and `Isa Ben Adam, a stand-in for a philosophically well versed moral absolutist. Both of them are figments of Kreeft's imagination, and maybe even parts of his own divided personality. The dialogues are deliberately fashioned after Socratic dialogues, and they serve as a vehicle through which Kreeft crafts his arguments in favor of moral absolutism.
I have had a chance to listen Kreeft give a lecture on this very topic, and based on that it would make sense to write the arguments in a form of dialogues. Kreeft is a very good public speaker and great at interacting with audience and thinking on his feet about even the most arcane topic. This is clearly reflected in the book as well, as some of potential intellectual minefields are avoided with masterful grace. Furthermore, it is quite unusual nowadays to come across a book written in a form of dialogue. The academic writing tends to be very technical and impersonal, and that sometimes detracts from otherwise a very interesting topic. However, reading a page after page of interpersonal argumentation can get overbearing after a while, especially if the give-and-take can be rather confrontational on an occasion. However, this is easily compensated by lucidity of the prose and cogency of arguments. If you have ever had to argue with a moral relativist, this would be an ideal book that can be used to refute most of their arguments. It is an exercise in absolutist apologetics.
The book is structured as a series of dialogues between Libby Rawls, a prototypical modern liberal relativist, and `Isa Ben Adam, a stand-in for a philosophically well versed moral absolutist. Both of them are figments of Kreeft's imagination, and maybe even parts of his own divided personality. The dialogues are deliberately fashioned after Socratic dialogues, and they serve as a vehicle through which Kreeft crafts his arguments in favor of moral absolutism.
I have had a chance to listen Kreeft give a lecture on this very topic, and based on that it would make sense to write the arguments in a form of dialogues. Kreeft is a very good public speaker and great at interacting with audience and thinking on his feet about even the most arcane topic. This is clearly reflected in the book as well, as some of potential intellectual minefields are avoided with masterful grace. Furthermore, it is quite unusual nowadays to come across a book written in a form of dialogue. The academic writing tends to be very technical and impersonal, and that sometimes detracts from otherwise a very interesting topic. However, reading a page after page of interpersonal argumentation can get overbearing after a while, especially if the give-and-take can be rather confrontational on an occasion. However, this is easily compensated by lucidity of the prose and cogency of arguments. If you have ever had to argue with a moral relativist, this would be an ideal book that can be used to refute most of their arguments. It is an exercise in absolutist apologetics.
September 10, 2016
Had to read this one for a class but quite enjoyed it. I'm not one for dry philosophy but I am one for both reading and writing fiction - which means I quite enjoyed Kreeft's false-interview format with his two characters. I found both of them to be very well drawn and, from a fiction standpoint, their dialogue to be impeccably written.
I also think Kreeft did something great here in that he gets us invested in both 'Isa the absolutist and Libby the relativist as people rather than just roles - and I think the true stroke of genius is that Libby is the more sympathetic character. 'Isa may be the one who the book says is right, but he's a dogmatic, self-inflated jerk. He's fun to read, and you do get to the point where you're kind of just waiting for his next lascerating verbal jab, but I think most readers would rather have a beer with Libby than 'Isa. We as readers want Libby to win, even if we disagree with her, because she's a nice person....but the entire point of the book is that feelings don't make something right.
I definitely would recommend this to people - including those who won't be convinced by it and those who hate philosophy - because it's a relatable way to wrap your brain around some really mind-bending philosophical concepts.
I also think Kreeft did something great here in that he gets us invested in both 'Isa the absolutist and Libby the relativist as people rather than just roles - and I think the true stroke of genius is that Libby is the more sympathetic character. 'Isa may be the one who the book says is right, but he's a dogmatic, self-inflated jerk. He's fun to read, and you do get to the point where you're kind of just waiting for his next lascerating verbal jab, but I think most readers would rather have a beer with Libby than 'Isa. We as readers want Libby to win, even if we disagree with her, because she's a nice person....but the entire point of the book is that feelings don't make something right.
I definitely would recommend this to people - including those who won't be convinced by it and those who hate philosophy - because it's a relatable way to wrap your brain around some really mind-bending philosophical concepts.
March 23, 2023
Written in a classical socratic dialogue, 'A Refutation' allows each perspective its time and pace. Kreeft not only clearly has fun with this one -- much as I imagine Socrates must have enjoyed the badinage in his day -- but he lets arguments run both fully upon logic while also exploring the people often involved in them. If more philosophers thought and wrote in dialogue, we'd have more engaging -- and more accurate -- philosophy. We'd also have something more like authentic philosophy: a possible love affair.
[Note from 2008? -- A dialogue of ineffable interest. I think reading it will give one from either side of the soi-disant debate a piece of /sophia/ worth wondering on. The best of the world is not to be PERFECTLY known, but to be wondered over. ]
May 31, 2015
This book reminds me of some of the more enjoyable texts from my philosophy courses at university, but it's premise and arguments, while deeply philosophical, are certainly out-of-tune with the philosophy of our age. I can think of no higher compliment than this last, because it breaks down some of the more pernicious nonsense that pervades contemporary philosophy into a simple interlocution, pitting a religious rationalist against a relativistic modernist and letting the chips fall where they may. It is an engaging read for any budding philosopher.
November 4, 2016
I am not a philosopher by any measure, but I appreciate the efforts of Kreeft in this book. Framed as an interview between a Muslim professor of philosophy and his former student, the dialog has the two sparring, defending or refuting moral relativism. At times the student, despite her feisty nature, folds in her defense of relativism, too easily bowing to some of the professor's "proofs," but the overall arguments are sound and clear (as clear as philosophy ever sounds to me anyway). Kreeft is definitely a heavyweight in my corner.
June 16, 2013
Highlights the great philosophical conundrum of our times. Well written and easy to follow at times (even though the philosophy can get a bit heavy). Really recommended for everyone, it provides key insights into Western popular thought. Something I really enjoyed is that it highlights the philosophical history of current thought.
March 5, 2021
This book provides arguments for moral absolutism, and tries to refute moral relativism. I really appreciated the logical and philosophical approach. I found this hit the mark with relevant questions and issues regarding morality. I wish it was more evenhanded, that it was an actual debate between an absolutist and relativist, but it was still thought-provoking and enjoyable.
January 4, 2014
An interesting and sound dialogue. My only trouble is with Dr. Kreeft's writing style, which is often pompous and includes the poor taste of referencing oneself. Philosophically, though, I think it is very good.
December 14, 2013
the insults that the characters hurled at one another made me lower its ratings. but i think it doesn't cover the 'in-between' position of there existing some absolutes, while other parts are relative.
August 8, 2013
This e-book is absolutely filled with typographical errors. There were some things I didn't like about the book but it still made some very good points.
December 28, 2012
The first half of this book was really good, but it slowly turned into a one sided discussion and quickly lost my interest.
November 6, 2014
Great arguments
February 12, 2015
My third reading. Still the best book on this subject.
July 6, 2015
I appreciate the dialogue style of the book and his desire for his readers to think like Socrates.
March 14, 2017
Kreeft is excellent as always - puts into concrete words what I have long vaguely felt about many European philosophers since the Renaissance.
August 7, 2017
A fun read and useful for students who are certain of the relativity of all morals.
March 5, 2023
I'm not totally on board with what this author is selling, and I am flat out uncomfortable that he feels the need to highlight that his antagonist, Libby, is a beautiful lesbian black liberal...when the only relevant part of that description is that she is liberal and believes in moral relativism...but I give the author points for super witty and snippy dialogue that is similar in cadence to something Aaron Sorkin or Amy Sherman-Palladino might write. But the deck is stacked in this book so that the moral-absolutist wins every argument - I would have preferred a fairer fight, even if I'm not a moral relativist, per se. This was a book that was assigned for a grad school class.
September 16, 2018
I didn’t actually finish this, but not because it wasn’t a good book. Rather, the author was, as they say, preaching to the choir. I find moral relativism to be distasteful, or worse. Peter Kreeft addresses it by setting up a series of interviews between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist, wherein he trots out all of the modern arguments in favor of relativism and refutes them by means of logic and formal philosophical principles. A worthy effort on his part, but since I already agree with him, I chose not to finish it.
January 4, 2023
i really didn't enjoy the characters and the fighting because i felt like their snarky comments and desire to one up one another took away from the points they were trying to make and convey. their arguments would've been stronger if they had not fallen into so many logical fallacies and unnecessary jabs at each other. it was also really hard to read because i had to finish it in a day for school, and a lot of the terminology and vocabulary was verbose or confusing to me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews