What do you think?
Rate this book
Does Anything Really Matter?: Essays on Parfit on Objectivity
In the first two volumes of On What Matters Derek Parfit argues that there are objective moral truths, and other normative truths about what we have reasons to believe, and to want, and to do. He thus challenges a view of the role of reason in action that can be traced back to David Hume, and is widely assumed to be correct, not only by philosophers but also by economists. In defending his view, Parfit argues that if there are no objective normative truths, nihilism follows, and nothing matters. He criticizes, often forcefully, many leading contemporary philosophers working on the nature of ethics, including Simon Blackburn, Stephen Darwall, Allen Gibbard, Frank Jackson, Peter Railton, Mark Schroeder, Michael Smith, and Sharon Street. Does Anything Really Matter? gives these philosophers an opportunity to respond to Parfit's criticisms, and includes essays on Parfit's views by Richard Chappell, Andrew Huddleston, Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer, Bruce Russell, and
Larry Temkin. A third volume of On What Matters , in which Parfit engages with his critics and breaks new ground in finding significant agreement between his own views and theirs, is appearing as a separate companion volume.
Larry Temkin. A third volume of On What Matters , in which Parfit engages with his critics and breaks new ground in finding significant agreement between his own views and theirs, is appearing as a separate companion volume.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
318 pages, Hardcover
Published March 19, 2017
9 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
187 books11.1k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 23, 2017
I should say that I'm a bit biased on this one. I had the opportunity to study with Parfit while this compilation was being put together, and so a few of the articles (the essays by Street, Gibbard, and Railton in particular) were all things I was pretty familiar with, as well as the source material. With that said, I tried to bracket that for the purpose of this review.
Derek Parfit's On What Matters is one of the most important books on ethics written so far this century. (There are some other candidates, but this seems like a pretty heavy contender.) There are a number of challenges with the book; the first is that it is a behemoth, and the second is that it requires a good deal of clarification of Parfit's position and the implications of those views. Fortunately, this collection of essays solves that problem by explaining some of the context and concerns about Parfit's views while also charitably articulating what Parfit maintains and argues in the multi-part monster.
Several of the essays in this collection are themselves really substantial contributions to discussions in metaethics. Jackson's article on reductionism and Gibbard's rearticulation of his own views should probably see independent publication, as they include pretty succinct and engaging illustrations of important positions in the contemporary literature independent of the fact that they're articulated as engagements with Parfit's contrary positions.
It is hard to recommend a book that is predicated on some understanding of and interest in a difficult piece of source material, but I think that one of the reasons that this collection is so good is that even a passing familiarity with Parfit and his importance is sufficient to get into the book. The expositions of Parfit's positions are pretty accessible and engaging. I would definitely recommend this to any philosopher interested in contemporary discussions in metaethics, and I think it is likely a must-read for anyone commenting on Parfit and the extending tendrils of his views.
Derek Parfit's On What Matters is one of the most important books on ethics written so far this century. (There are some other candidates, but this seems like a pretty heavy contender.) There are a number of challenges with the book; the first is that it is a behemoth, and the second is that it requires a good deal of clarification of Parfit's position and the implications of those views. Fortunately, this collection of essays solves that problem by explaining some of the context and concerns about Parfit's views while also charitably articulating what Parfit maintains and argues in the multi-part monster.
Several of the essays in this collection are themselves really substantial contributions to discussions in metaethics. Jackson's article on reductionism and Gibbard's rearticulation of his own views should probably see independent publication, as they include pretty succinct and engaging illustrations of important positions in the contemporary literature independent of the fact that they're articulated as engagements with Parfit's contrary positions.
It is hard to recommend a book that is predicated on some understanding of and interest in a difficult piece of source material, but I think that one of the reasons that this collection is so good is that even a passing familiarity with Parfit and his importance is sufficient to get into the book. The expositions of Parfit's positions are pretty accessible and engaging. I would definitely recommend this to any philosopher interested in contemporary discussions in metaethics, and I think it is likely a must-read for anyone commenting on Parfit and the extending tendrils of his views.
June 20, 2017
The first two volumes of On What Matters were groundbreaking, particularly when it came to meta-ethics: Parfit spends a good part of Parts I and VI (in Volumes One and Two, respectively) arguing that if there are no normative truths that exist independently of our desires and whims, the universe would be a very bleak place indeed, and we would be forced to accept Nihilism.
In this book, many eminent philosophers challenge the arguments presented in those volumes, and there are some interesting contributions here, particularly those of Gibbard, Railton, Street, Smith, and Singer & de Lazari-Radek. My personal view is that the challenges to Parfit's central claim, elucidated above, fail. Nonetheless, Singer and de Lazari-Radek (who broadly accept Parfit's meta-ethical views) make a strong argument against Parfit's views on what the normative truths he and they believe to exist actually are.
Parfit responds to all of the essays presented in this work in On What Matters, Volume Three.
In this book, many eminent philosophers challenge the arguments presented in those volumes, and there are some interesting contributions here, particularly those of Gibbard, Railton, Street, Smith, and Singer & de Lazari-Radek. My personal view is that the challenges to Parfit's central claim, elucidated above, fail. Nonetheless, Singer and de Lazari-Radek (who broadly accept Parfit's meta-ethical views) make a strong argument against Parfit's views on what the normative truths he and they believe to exist actually are.
Parfit responds to all of the essays presented in this work in On What Matters, Volume Three.
June 7, 2017
Derek Parfit's massive work, "On What Matters," generated great interest due to the potent and highly regarded work that preceded it, "Reasons and Persons." Since its publication, this latest work has not received near the renown of its predecessor and has generated a wide range of criticism. While I have great respect for several of the philosophers who contributed to this anthology of critiques, few manage to generate much in the way of substantive and substantiated disagreement. Allan Gibbard's essay is a notable exception and is the most lucid writing I've read of his recently. Richard Chappell, Andrew Huddleston, Frank Jackson, and Peter Singer make noteworthy contributions as well but the overall quality of this collection is hugely uneven and at times just benign casuistry, or, in the case of Blackburn, spiteful dismissal. If you have read Parfit's work then you will want to have this collection in your library as it gives a wide variety of critiques, unfortunately most of them are not particularly successful and you would be well served to pick up the recently published third volume of OWM where Parfit responds to these critiques in characteristically direct fashion, highlighting numerous cases where there actually is no conflict.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews