What do you think?
Rate this book
What is Good?
A.C. Grayling answers the most important question - How do we live a good life?
One of the most fundamental questions in our life is to find out what we value - what principles we want to live by and which codes we will use to guide our behaviour. Most of us want to live a good life. But what, in today's secular society, does 'good' actually mean?
To classical Greeks, the acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of the senses, creativity and beauty were all aspects of life to strive for. Then came the volcanic declarations of St Paul and his fundamentalist ideas on sin and human nature. In WHAT IS GOOD?, A.C. Grayling examines these and other proposals on how to live a good life, from the 'heroic' ideals of the Greek poets to Kant's theories on freedom and the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
One of the most fundamental questions in our life is to find out what we value - what principles we want to live by and which codes we will use to guide our behaviour. Most of us want to live a good life. But what, in today's secular society, does 'good' actually mean?
To classical Greeks, the acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of the senses, creativity and beauty were all aspects of life to strive for. Then came the volcanic declarations of St Paul and his fundamentalist ideas on sin and human nature. In WHAT IS GOOD?, A.C. Grayling examines these and other proposals on how to live a good life, from the 'heroic' ideals of the Greek poets to Kant's theories on freedom and the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
38 people are currently reading
505 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books666 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
July 21, 2009
There's a grand tradition of eudaemonology (the study of the best life for man) in Western philosophy, but this entry isn't among it. I am firmly on Grayling's side in the kerfuffle between secular humanism and religion, but to imply that, historically, the search for the good has been conducted almost exclusively along this divide is just too simplistic. This book is basically a polemic against letting superstition (in the guise of religious belief) determine our self-regarding and other-regarding values. But for those of us already convinced of that point, the book makes little headway in adjudicating between competing secular conceptions of the good. What proportion of sensual, intellectual and emotional pleasures ought a person pursue? Why not adopt a pessimistic stance and try to avoid life's evils? What does the psychological study of personality tell us about an individual capacity for achieving the good? None of these questions gets much if any atention.
Grayling is a clear and forceful writer, hence the three stars. But if you're looking for answers about how to orient your life (beside whether or not to steer it along some religious course), you won't find them here.
Grayling is a clear and forceful writer, hence the three stars. But if you're looking for answers about how to orient your life (beside whether or not to steer it along some religious course), you won't find them here.
March 15, 2020
In this book A. C, Grayling provides both a historical look at ethics and provides a secular view to be considered. I would say strongly so. It has been a while since a read the book, and I do not remember what many of the individual chapters discuss, so I will forgo my usual synopsis.
The following are some comments I made along the way on specific parts of the text. Page numbers use Kindle pagination and are in brackets [].
[15] “The most famous expression of it is the dictum of Protagoras, anthropos metron panton (‘Man is the measure of all things’).” Maybe that’s because human beings are the only animals that measure things.
[147] “He [Hume] added another argument: even if there were indeed objective moral facts, the mere recognition of them would never motivate anyone to act one way rather than another; action can only be prompted by emotion, and therefore it would still be necessary for us to feel something in order for us to be moved to do anything.” This feeling is what free will really is. A feeling that pushes us to action. Without it we would make no deliberate actions.
[173] “He [John Stuart Mill] was rescued by reading Marmontel and Wordsworth, both of whom taught him the profound importance of the emotions even to reason . . .” He recognize the importance of feelings for thought and thought for feelings. They are intimately connected.
[226] “In their respective ways Sartre and Camus made this gratuitous aspect of human existence central, emphasising the fact that individuals simply find themselves thrown into the world, as it were, without external purpose or guide, as a result of the blind flow of natural events.” But they forget that there are plenty of external guides: parents, teachers, plus life experiences; we are not blind or incapable of finding meaning and purpose in life. We all find things of importance to us and goals to accomplish. Existentialists are basically babbling cry babies.
As with most of A. C. Grayling books this was a good book as far as I can remember. I am sorry I cannot provide more analysis of its content.
Still I would recommend it as a good book on secular humanism’s view of ethics.
The following are some comments I made along the way on specific parts of the text. Page numbers use Kindle pagination and are in brackets [].
[15] “The most famous expression of it is the dictum of Protagoras, anthropos metron panton (‘Man is the measure of all things’).” Maybe that’s because human beings are the only animals that measure things.
[147] “He [Hume] added another argument: even if there were indeed objective moral facts, the mere recognition of them would never motivate anyone to act one way rather than another; action can only be prompted by emotion, and therefore it would still be necessary for us to feel something in order for us to be moved to do anything.” This feeling is what free will really is. A feeling that pushes us to action. Without it we would make no deliberate actions.
[173] “He [John Stuart Mill] was rescued by reading Marmontel and Wordsworth, both of whom taught him the profound importance of the emotions even to reason . . .” He recognize the importance of feelings for thought and thought for feelings. They are intimately connected.
[226] “In their respective ways Sartre and Camus made this gratuitous aspect of human existence central, emphasising the fact that individuals simply find themselves thrown into the world, as it were, without external purpose or guide, as a result of the blind flow of natural events.” But they forget that there are plenty of external guides: parents, teachers, plus life experiences; we are not blind or incapable of finding meaning and purpose in life. We all find things of importance to us and goals to accomplish. Existentialists are basically babbling cry babies.
As with most of A. C. Grayling books this was a good book as far as I can remember. I am sorry I cannot provide more analysis of its content.
Still I would recommend it as a good book on secular humanism’s view of ethics.
May 15, 2023
This is a survey of ethics beginning with the Greek philosophers such as Epicurus, Plato and Aristotle then Roman philosophers such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, then Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas, then philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Diderot and Voltaire then on to people like Nietschke and John Stuart Mill then on to twentieth century philosophers such as Moore and Ayer. A lot of the book is descriptive but a lot of it attacks theistic ethics and praises humanist ethics. Well written.
August 18, 2025
This book couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a history of philosophy book or some kind of informal treatise on ethics. While it did not advertise itself to be either of these things, I expected it to be more focused on actually examining what the good life is rather than the tedious repetition of "humanism good, religion bad" (I say this as an atheist). This was disappointing as I quite enjoyed reading A.C Grayling book on the History of Philosophy.
January 3, 2014
I should admit from the start that, as someone who would consider himself very much a humanist (and also a deist), I have a natural predilection for anything that highlights the absurdities of organised religion. Subsequently, I expect I was primed to appreciate this book by default. That aside, the book is a tremendously useful starting point for those wishing to delve into the evolution of ethical thought. I have little prior knowledge of this area and it suited my needs perfectly. Pertinent ideas are covered in sufficient detail to allow a general acquaintance and to give the reader a sense of what they would like to follow up more thoroughly in the original literature (the bibliography is a good resource for this).
Grayling controversially implies religion has made a negligible contribution to answering the titular question, 'What is Good?'. Chapter four in particular is searingly partisan. Even as someone dismissive of organised religion, I found this book rather too harsh a polemic on its failings: for example, the accusation that church leaders are content to watch the world burn (through starvation, curable disease, the arms trade, etc) whilst they concern themselves with teenage pregnancies and pre-marital sex is gratuitous. The text goes too far, for my tastes, in supporting a wholly atheistic view too, whereas I would contend it is ORGANISED religion (and I will keep making the distinction between religion as an idea and religion as it is overwhelmingly practiced) that is problematic not the concept of deity itself.
Don't let the shortcomings dissuade you from sampling 'What Is Good?'; despite over-reaching on occasions in its reproaches, this remains an excellent book as a contemplation of what the good, for human and humanity, entails.
Grayling controversially implies religion has made a negligible contribution to answering the titular question, 'What is Good?'. Chapter four in particular is searingly partisan. Even as someone dismissive of organised religion, I found this book rather too harsh a polemic on its failings: for example, the accusation that church leaders are content to watch the world burn (through starvation, curable disease, the arms trade, etc) whilst they concern themselves with teenage pregnancies and pre-marital sex is gratuitous. The text goes too far, for my tastes, in supporting a wholly atheistic view too, whereas I would contend it is ORGANISED religion (and I will keep making the distinction between religion as an idea and religion as it is overwhelmingly practiced) that is problematic not the concept of deity itself.
Don't let the shortcomings dissuade you from sampling 'What Is Good?'; despite over-reaching on occasions in its reproaches, this remains an excellent book as a contemplation of what the good, for human and humanity, entails.
May 10, 2009
A fantastic book that I had forgotten I'd read until now - I plan to re-read it this summer, along with many others. If you're interested in the general philosophical questions of life, ethics and/or simply want an interesting read then this is the book to pick up, and sit down with. Excellently written - it makes some of philosophy's most challenging and complex propositions become clear(-er). It certainly helped me at the beginning of my studies, and continues to be a source of inspiration from which I continue to draw ideas.
May 28, 2017
Good history of human knowledge of ethics...
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
June 22, 2019
A summary history of philosophical movements, from the Classical world through to the present, all framed in a debate of humanist secular ethics vs religious transcendental thinking. I was surprised by the emphasis on this clash, and something about the tone makes me think of the New Atheists. To some extent I think that this drew focus away from discussion of the Good.
I also had some qualms about the historiography of representing various periods as "enlightenments" — and, for instance, the downplaying of developments made in the Middle Ages.
A little discomfort notwithstanding, I thought the book did a good job of summarising the contributions of various thinkers, and of creating some context for their lives and thinking.
I also had some qualms about the historiography of representing various periods as "enlightenments" — and, for instance, the downplaying of developments made in the Middle Ages.
A little discomfort notwithstanding, I thought the book did a good job of summarising the contributions of various thinkers, and of creating some context for their lives and thinking.
Currently reading
June 6, 2011A lay-person's guide to how the great thinkers in history defined living the good life. The author declares his personal bias within the first few pages of the book -- he is a zealous atheist who dismisses all religious traditions out of hand. The major philosophical schools and their founders as well as their more famous adherents are examined. The different ways of living the good life are as various as the people who think about it. Good stuff to mull on.
January 31, 2008
Excerpted from p.141:
"the good life for human individuals certainly requires the best of both traditions (the Enlightenment and Romanticism) but arguably it least requires the worst aspects of Romanticism if these come down to yielding authority to such things as race, the Hero, the Genius, the Leader, tradition, nature, untutored emotions, visions, supernatural beings and the like."
"the good life for human individuals certainly requires the best of both traditions (the Enlightenment and Romanticism) but arguably it least requires the worst aspects of Romanticism if these come down to yielding authority to such things as race, the Hero, the Genius, the Leader, tradition, nature, untutored emotions, visions, supernatural beings and the like."
June 2, 2012
"The creativity of living resides in the way individual freedom is used, in forming relationships, gaining and applying knowledge, and cultivating and enjoying pleasures". This book beautifully, forcefully, and concisely articulates what it has taken me 40 years to realise I believe. Readability was greatly enhanced by the casual referencing, with no distracting footnotes.
December 9, 2014
One of the most influential books I have ever read, A C Grayling's "What is Good?" takes a deeper look in to the fields of human ethics, it's validity and the true meaning of good and it's true extensive nature. A must read for all those who love rational philosophy written with poetic conviction and provides us with a glimpse into the meaning of life.
December 25, 2015
I love the writing of Anthony Grayling so inevitably prejudices my view.
A most readable and enlightening sprint through the history of western thought (a little to quick over Existentialism for me) espousing a most powerful argument for humanism currently and in the future. At the risk of pleonasm (a term learned today) I shall conclude.
Highly recommended
16.45
A most readable and enlightening sprint through the history of western thought (a little to quick over Existentialism for me) espousing a most powerful argument for humanism currently and in the future. At the risk of pleonasm (a term learned today) I shall conclude.
Highly recommended
16.45
December 12, 2010
A lucid, down to earth view of our conception of "the good life" throughout the ages. Derides the need for religion as a backbone to being virtuous. Great.
May 11, 2016
An accessible and lucid account of this illusive phenomenon... in short a good account of goodness..
April 14, 2014
Hmm. Okay. Nice quote to end on from Socrates, which I think should've begun the book, and perhaps started me thinking more than hmm... okay the whole way through.
June 22, 2016
This is a very accessible route into some interesting philosophical ideas. I remember being very impressed. It was many years ago that I read this, so cannot say much more.
December 16, 2024
Outstanding book and an extremely compelling and well-articulated introduction to the history of philosophy, but with a pointed bias (or just strong feelings) against the enforcement of religious belief.
March 5, 2018
The author is too eager in his endeavors to enumerate references and parade language complexity, that the book is written in the most common-reader-unfriendly manners possible.
September 13, 2020
It reminded me of my philosophy degree (I loved my degree)
August 12, 2025
inte värd tiden. boken är en översikt över olika sätt att se på det högsta goda. den har inte hög verkshöjd.
July 28, 2010
I find it really hard to rate books. That is, it's really difficult for me to give a book, or anything, a series of stars. This is mostly because it's hard for me to fix firmly what a thing is for. Their uses and their meaning always vary for me according to context. Perhaps it's silly to say, but if you're in a dance club celebrating a birthday and the DJ drops 50 Cent's In Da Club, I always find it a total five-star experience, though I'm no great fan of the song's musicianship or lyrical content. Try singing a Smiths song during a karaoke session! It's really not good.
And so it goes with books, and this one is a case in point. What's it for? Is it an overview for the general lay person of trends of western philosophical thought essentially since antiquity, or is it Grayling trying to use past masters as a club with which to beat Christianity and Islam?
If it's the former, it's actually better than I thought it would be. I think that Grayling's writing is incredibly pompous, but perhaps given the supposed trend of 'dumbing down', a term which curdles my milk, a little pomposity isn't such a bad thing, and the book isn't particularly tough to follow. So, why not?
If it's the latter, then as my 12th grade English teacher commented on my dismal first attempt to write a meaningful bit of expository writing, 'oh boy ...' There's a mishmash of why all this 'Oriental' religion is evil and foreign to the purity of Greek and Roman thought, through to implying Kierkegaard was a sell out for his leap of faith, Newton's religion was sort of a weird aberration and so on. He's got moderates and fundamentalists in the same boat, with the implication that if they could, moderates would become fundamentalists and begin stoning women and exalting superstition and all that jazz. He's in that 'people wouldn't fight each other if there was no religion' basket, ignoring the role of ethnicity, national boundary, class and money.
But, that said, I actually enjoyed the book. As much as I've just bipped him with my tiny little mind, Grayling knows his onions. He gets deep down and dirty into your various western thinkers and their takes on what it means to, pardon my slipping into a bit of patois, live good. It's more a launch pad for you to jump into a deeper study of works well known and otherwise over the past 3000-plus years in western ethics. If you're prepared to dodge the bits of plum issuing forth from his mouth in every sentence, and his anti-religious crusading, you'll be in good hands.
And so it goes with books, and this one is a case in point. What's it for? Is it an overview for the general lay person of trends of western philosophical thought essentially since antiquity, or is it Grayling trying to use past masters as a club with which to beat Christianity and Islam?
If it's the former, it's actually better than I thought it would be. I think that Grayling's writing is incredibly pompous, but perhaps given the supposed trend of 'dumbing down', a term which curdles my milk, a little pomposity isn't such a bad thing, and the book isn't particularly tough to follow. So, why not?
If it's the latter, then as my 12th grade English teacher commented on my dismal first attempt to write a meaningful bit of expository writing, 'oh boy ...' There's a mishmash of why all this 'Oriental' religion is evil and foreign to the purity of Greek and Roman thought, through to implying Kierkegaard was a sell out for his leap of faith, Newton's religion was sort of a weird aberration and so on. He's got moderates and fundamentalists in the same boat, with the implication that if they could, moderates would become fundamentalists and begin stoning women and exalting superstition and all that jazz. He's in that 'people wouldn't fight each other if there was no religion' basket, ignoring the role of ethnicity, national boundary, class and money.
But, that said, I actually enjoyed the book. As much as I've just bipped him with my tiny little mind, Grayling knows his onions. He gets deep down and dirty into your various western thinkers and their takes on what it means to, pardon my slipping into a bit of patois, live good. It's more a launch pad for you to jump into a deeper study of works well known and otherwise over the past 3000-plus years in western ethics. If you're prepared to dodge the bits of plum issuing forth from his mouth in every sentence, and his anti-religious crusading, you'll be in good hands.
December 16, 2011
This is a brilliant little book. It surveys a big selection of western philosophers by their views on ethics and contrasts ancient and modern humanism with the Christian centuries in the middle. His defence of humanism is vigorous, clear and brilliantly concise. His demolition job of religion is startling and more subtle than Darkins' sledge-hammer approach.
I now 'get' much better people like the ancient Stoics (the ultimate guides to the good life?)and Freud and have new a understanding of ones I thought I knew, like Mill. The focus on ethics is highly effective and makes the book read like old-fashioned philosophy - about big questions not fiddling with and refining definitions. It also bring out some unexpected similarities between apparently contasting figues (Mill and Nietzsche again)rather than stressing big differences.
Yet having read it, by I then by chance (not Design!) I sat through a live performance of Handel's 'Messiah.' This mighty slab of religiously-inspired art reinforced some doubts about Grayling's case. Why do people seem to be unfulfilled by humanism? (something Grayling rejects but I didn't feel he nailed it). Why does religion refuse to give up? These lingering questions are of course the mark of a great author and teacher: he lays out the issues with such clarity that you feel not preached to but rather invited into the debate. This is a modern masterpiece of brevity and provocation on a key topic of our age.
I now 'get' much better people like the ancient Stoics (the ultimate guides to the good life?)and Freud and have new a understanding of ones I thought I knew, like Mill. The focus on ethics is highly effective and makes the book read like old-fashioned philosophy - about big questions not fiddling with and refining definitions. It also bring out some unexpected similarities between apparently contasting figues (Mill and Nietzsche again)rather than stressing big differences.
Yet having read it, by I then by chance (not Design!) I sat through a live performance of Handel's 'Messiah.' This mighty slab of religiously-inspired art reinforced some doubts about Grayling's case. Why do people seem to be unfulfilled by humanism? (something Grayling rejects but I didn't feel he nailed it). Why does religion refuse to give up? These lingering questions are of course the mark of a great author and teacher: he lays out the issues with such clarity that you feel not preached to but rather invited into the debate. This is a modern masterpiece of brevity and provocation on a key topic of our age.
November 13, 2009
AVOID
Written by a dull and uninspired thinker. Whose thoughts are lazy and often plain stupid.
This book makes half an attempt to give an overview of the major philosophers who write about 'What is Good' But it is essentially a vanity project for the author to rant about his pet topics (the evils of religion, and medical ethics) His thinking is infuriatingly sloppy and I am surprised I finished this wretched book.
Probably the one redeeming feature is that it provides a guide to the thinkers you should be looking at if you are interested in exploring what is good.
Written by a dull and uninspired thinker. Whose thoughts are lazy and often plain stupid.
This book makes half an attempt to give an overview of the major philosophers who write about 'What is Good' But it is essentially a vanity project for the author to rant about his pet topics (the evils of religion, and medical ethics) His thinking is infuriatingly sloppy and I am surprised I finished this wretched book.
Probably the one redeeming feature is that it provides a guide to the thinkers you should be looking at if you are interested in exploring what is good.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews