What do you think?
Rate this book
Without God, is Everything Permitted? The 20 Big Questions in Ethics
Can it ever be right to kill? Is terrorism ever justified? Should euthanasia be legal? Are some people superior to others? Do animals have rights?
Some ethical judgements are easy: one side is wrong and the other is right. But how do we handle the really tough 'right vs right' dilemmas, where each side has strong moral arguments? In Without God, is Everything Permitted? bestselling author and philosopher Julian Baggini clear-sightedly and compassionately examines 20 of the most complex contemporary ethical dilemmas.
Whether it's asking if torture is always wrong, or if discrimination can ever be good, this book will help you sort out what you really believe about the issues that matter most.
Some ethical judgements are easy: one side is wrong and the other is right. But how do we handle the really tough 'right vs right' dilemmas, where each side has strong moral arguments? In Without God, is Everything Permitted? bestselling author and philosopher Julian Baggini clear-sightedly and compassionately examines 20 of the most complex contemporary ethical dilemmas.
Whether it's asking if torture is always wrong, or if discrimination can ever be good, this book will help you sort out what you really believe about the issues that matter most.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
208 pages, Paperback
First published October 2, 2014
15 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
About the author
Julian Baggini
76 books597 followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 26, 2023
Overall very disppointing. Instead of simply discussing the issues and questions and the various answers given to them the author instead admits themselves that they'll be giving their opinions on them as well as others thoughts were relevant. Ultimately this serves to create a disjointed mess where they switch from discussing what others think to what they themselves think, due to the lay out of the book the author also does not move from point to point in a normal fashion and instead jumps from random points of arguement to others. So even if you're interested in what the author likes to say about these topics it's hard to impossible to decipher what his ethical system actually looks like.
Ignoring this the author also has large issues with strawmaning positions he disagrees with, using terms inaccurately and even being inconsistent with his own arguements. For example when someone else is using a definition of a word to mean something that it is clear the general public doesn't mean when using that same word it's bad and invalidates their arguement. But when the author decides to redefine what 'nature' means to a similarly absurd definition then it's all fine and dandy.
Another issue with their treatment of these dilemmas is their habit of reductionism in which routinely they conclude a section by saying that two different perspectives all agree on the same thing which is that they want what's best for humanity. This completely sidesteps that issue however as that was never what was even being disputed, instead the ways that each side approaches a topic is where the conversation was and should be had. The author doesn't advance any learning or understanding of different perspectives with this habit.
Even if we ignore all this again what they're trying to say at points is unclear due to the way they phrase themselves and the editing of the book itself. In fact it seems there wasn't an editor or even a look over. Routinely you'll come across paragraphs where it reads the author is saying the opposite of what they're trying to say, usually because of the addition or removal of a vital word or piece of punctuation.
Where the author truly loses the plot however is when they reach the section on nature and climate change. Firstly one could tell this was going to be bad when they had to redefine what nature meant, but I don't think anyone would expect them to then start arguing that climate change isn't ethically bad and could be good. (While again just a paragraph or two later disproving their own arguement for that without any self awareness it seems.) This marks a turning point in which what the author says each chapter becomes more and more incoherent from what they said in the last chapter.
Ignoring this the author also has large issues with strawmaning positions he disagrees with, using terms inaccurately and even being inconsistent with his own arguements. For example when someone else is using a definition of a word to mean something that it is clear the general public doesn't mean when using that same word it's bad and invalidates their arguement. But when the author decides to redefine what 'nature' means to a similarly absurd definition then it's all fine and dandy.
Another issue with their treatment of these dilemmas is their habit of reductionism in which routinely they conclude a section by saying that two different perspectives all agree on the same thing which is that they want what's best for humanity. This completely sidesteps that issue however as that was never what was even being disputed, instead the ways that each side approaches a topic is where the conversation was and should be had. The author doesn't advance any learning or understanding of different perspectives with this habit.
Even if we ignore all this again what they're trying to say at points is unclear due to the way they phrase themselves and the editing of the book itself. In fact it seems there wasn't an editor or even a look over. Routinely you'll come across paragraphs where it reads the author is saying the opposite of what they're trying to say, usually because of the addition or removal of a vital word or piece of punctuation.
Where the author truly loses the plot however is when they reach the section on nature and climate change. Firstly one could tell this was going to be bad when they had to redefine what nature meant, but I don't think anyone would expect them to then start arguing that climate change isn't ethically bad and could be good. (While again just a paragraph or two later disproving their own arguement for that without any self awareness it seems.) This marks a turning point in which what the author says each chapter becomes more and more incoherent from what they said in the last chapter.
March 26, 2017
ตอนแรกนึกว่าเป็นนักเขียนอิตาลี อ่านไปอ่านมา ทำไมมันช่างเป็นระบบและน่าเบื่อได้เหมือนพวกนักปรัชญา analytic ขนาดนี้ สรุป มันเป็นอังกฤษ by training และ by citizenship จบ
March 22, 2016
The title, which echoes The Brothers Karamazov, is misleading. This is basically a very brief, readable "Top 20" introduction to ethics. I divide this book into the first 60%, which is excellent, and the last 40% which is disappointing.
Baggini does a good job of referring to both classic and contemporary philosophers to illuminate moral issues. Sometimes, as in "How much should we give to charity?" he comes to a fairly definite conclusion that we (in the rich world) ought to be doing more than most of us do. But he's at his best when he isn't giving answers, but rather clarifying why a question is so hard. With abortion, for example, he points out the rather obvious fact that if you really believe it is murder, you would have to oppose it. Most people aren't either "pro-choice" or "pro-life"; we value both choice and life, and the problems arise when one value is in conflict with another.
About 60% of the way through the book, the editing went awry, and the chapters were less satisfying also. I am not sure what happened here, since this is a paperback--if the hardcover had been rushed into print, surely mistakes could have been corrected by now. Misprints abound, including a crucial "not" that is missing and changes the whole conclusion of a chapter. But it's also the case that I found the later chapters less illuminating in general. When Baggini addresses moral relativism, he gives the clear example of an atrociously abused child to show what we all agree is terrible and the danger of relativism; but earlier, he's shown us that sometimes a person is so "sick" or morally disabled that s/he might not recognize evil for what it is. So I ended the book without an answer as to *how* we know that something so wrong is just wrong.
Overall, though, a good introduction to moral philosophy that isn't afraid to deal with hard subjects. Whether it's assisted dying, the Christian God, Jeremy Bentham, or Socrates, you're going to have to think, and that's a welcome change.
Baggini does a good job of referring to both classic and contemporary philosophers to illuminate moral issues. Sometimes, as in "How much should we give to charity?" he comes to a fairly definite conclusion that we (in the rich world) ought to be doing more than most of us do. But he's at his best when he isn't giving answers, but rather clarifying why a question is so hard. With abortion, for example, he points out the rather obvious fact that if you really believe it is murder, you would have to oppose it. Most people aren't either "pro-choice" or "pro-life"; we value both choice and life, and the problems arise when one value is in conflict with another.
About 60% of the way through the book, the editing went awry, and the chapters were less satisfying also. I am not sure what happened here, since this is a paperback--if the hardcover had been rushed into print, surely mistakes could have been corrected by now. Misprints abound, including a crucial "not" that is missing and changes the whole conclusion of a chapter. But it's also the case that I found the later chapters less illuminating in general. When Baggini addresses moral relativism, he gives the clear example of an atrociously abused child to show what we all agree is terrible and the danger of relativism; but earlier, he's shown us that sometimes a person is so "sick" or morally disabled that s/he might not recognize evil for what it is. So I ended the book without an answer as to *how* we know that something so wrong is just wrong.
Overall, though, a good introduction to moral philosophy that isn't afraid to deal with hard subjects. Whether it's assisted dying, the Christian God, Jeremy Bentham, or Socrates, you're going to have to think, and that's a welcome change.
April 29, 2016
A pretty satisfying read! I liked the selection of ethical issues and especially the order of the chapters, with the discussion leading to the most important issues of relativism, morality and God, as well as the possibility of resolving ethical dilemmas. The book is also a fairly accessible entry-level text, and nonetheless precise and comprehensive in its presentation of important issues in ethical philosophy.
Just feel that a few chapters are weak in the sense that they reflect too much of Baggini's biases (or maybe I am just biased against his viewpoint haha), or fail to strike the heart of the issue - the chapters on promiscuity and protecting the environment.
Just feel that a few chapters are weak in the sense that they reflect too much of Baggini's biases (or maybe I am just biased against his viewpoint haha), or fail to strike the heart of the issue - the chapters on promiscuity and protecting the environment.
May 19, 2022
Didn't do a good job of justifying secular morality, only elaborating on the moralities
dnf
August 12, 2022DNF - Due to some issues this book is a struggle for me to read. I hope later down the road I'll be able to read this completely.
August 23, 2022
Sedikit kecewa dengan terjemahan yang agak semrawut dan sulit dimengerti
August 2, 2025
need a re-read
February 1, 2021
memilih buku untuk dibaca berarti berharap akan mempengaruhi diri setelahnya. dan saya tidak bisa berkata banyak, karna cukup tumpang-tindih dari pandangan saya selama ini. but, buku ini boleh coba dibaca.
buku ini memiliki pandangan mengenai filsafat moral, isinya berupa esai dari author yang menjelaskan etika kontemporer yang paling kompleks-cheers, happy reading!
buku ini memiliki pandangan mengenai filsafat moral, isinya berupa esai dari author yang menjelaskan etika kontemporer yang paling kompleks-cheers, happy reading!
February 5, 2015
Rather thought provoking and I enjoyed it but if you're looking for someone to give you the absolute answers to the questions posed then this isn't the book for you. The title of course begs the counter question of "With God, Is Everything Permitted?"
June 30, 2015
A crisp, witty and extremely lucid guide to ethics in the modern world, with Mr Baggini refusing to give us answers but giving us the mental tools to accomplish the task. Highly recommended for the followers of the contemplative, reasoned approach
February 4, 2021
Buku ini membedah dilema dari fenomena kontroversial (apakah aborsi itu suatu pembunuhan? Apakah terorisme diperbolehkan?) yang kompleks dari segi moral dan etika. Bahasa terjemahan cukup — cukup untuk menjadikannya bahasa Indonesia aja, tapi tidak mudah dipahami.
March 18, 2021
cukup menarik pembahasannya, hanya sedikit kurang ngeh dengan beberapa topiknya
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews