What Should I Do? Philosophers on the Good. the Bad. and the Puzzling 1st Published

by Alexander George

Life throws ethical questions at us every day, some momentous and difficult, some fairly trivial and easily worked out. To help the average person deal with such puzzling issues, the website AskPhilosophers.org brings together a panel of distinguished philosophers who use their knowledge of the history of philosophy, as well as their own life experiences and native ingenuity, to respond to questions sent in from all over the world. What Should I Do? is a collection of some of the most interesting questions about ethics to have appeared on the website during its first five years. The questions addressed here come from young and old, from the educated to the barely schooled. The philosophers offer down-to-earth, often personal responses--indeed, stimulating, engaging, and candid conversations--that point readers in a helpful direction and refine further reflection. The book explores questions about how to behave toward one's friends, members of one's family, those we love, and even toward oneself. It looks at the moral dilemmas faced in professional relationships, in our treatment of animals, in our use of the environment, and even in our relation to God. Broadening still further, we find questions about the morality of a nation's actions, such as its right to punish its citizens or to wage war against other nations. Finally, the book considers some of the many questions people have about the nature of morality itself. A delightfully fresh look at philosophical questions, What Should I Do? will encourage readers to think a bit more deeply about the moral questions they frequently encounter, and will provide them with the tools to do so.

Genres: Philosophy

Paperback

First published December 30, 2010

Reviews

[Peter Geyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like to philosophise, but I'm not a philosopher, although some may see me that way.

One of the reasons for that, which C.G. Jung well understood in his much more exalted station as a thinker, is that there are rules, principles and methods for being a philosopher. So, whilst you can mention the ideas of philosophers in your work or presentations, and do a bit of interpretation, you may not be philosophical in doing so. Jung al;so made a similar comment about religious issues, about which he wrote a lot, but never claimed to be a theologian, simply a psychiatrist. It's a point all too often missed, or ignored, by people who should know better, I think.

This issue also relates to the current nature of Western philosophy, which differs in presumption and method from how philosophers went about their business in centuries past.

So why pick up a slim paperback that borders on self-help literature? Well, it might be accessible; it could be amusing; I'll get an idea of how a group of philosophers approach their craft; it's not just more of the same; and it's discounted.

The book consists of various discussions taken from a website in which someone asks a question and one or more philosophers respond to it. There are 4 broad categories of The Personal; The Public; The Political and The Nature of Morality, with various sub-headings. You find out who the philosophers contributing are at the end of the book; the people posing the questions are anonymous.

This was mostly a very enjoyable read. Sometimes I didn't think the response related all that much to the question poised, but this may be a cultural issue, as well as not thinking like the kinds of philosophers here. Then, too, culture issues include the obvious American context, where the responses were sometimes limited, particularly in the political sphere. There's a bit about the Iraq War which is a little too sketchy for my liking. Having said that, the people responding come with their own knowledge and views, however objective their aim, and to their credit, this is acknowledged. They don't claim to have the right answers and I enjoyed their honesty.

This is the kind of book where you can read a page or two every so often, and not feel lost when you return to it.

I mostly did that, until the last couple of days when I thought I should wrap it up and move on to something that filled the same gap and allows me to read other things along the way.

[Richard Martin]

No stars. It wouldn't be fair to the book itself. I have difficulty with reading philosophy for three reasons. First, philosophers all too frequently resort to circulative reasoning; I.e., ending up where they began. This accomplishes little. It is like a tire spinning on an axle of a car that is on jacks. The shell spins, but the car gets nowhere. Second, pedantry. Is there any way a philosopher can respond to or state an idea without reference to one or two other philosophers? Being a bit show-offish I think. Thirdly, use of rhetorical questions. Avoid answering a question with a question. If one is looking for a predetermined response, why not simply make it a statement? But that would spoil "the game."

[Dale · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book bills itself as answering perplexing ethical questions, and gets part of the way there by posing such questions and having philosophers give their thoughts. Unfortunately, the original questions and answers were taken from a website and the short-form answers are often a bit shallow and unsatisfying.

For a somewhat deeper and more interesting alternative, you might consider 'Being Good' by Simon Blackburn.