An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics

by Alexander Miller

This introduction provides a highly readable critical overview of the main arguments and themes in twentieth-century and contemporary metaethics. It traces the development of contemporary debates in metaethics from their beginnings in the work of G. E. Moore up to the most recent arguments between naturalism and non-naturalism, cognitivism and non-cognitivism.
A highly readable critical overview of the main arguments and themes in twentieth century and contemporary metaethics.
Asks: Are there moral facts? Is there such a thing as moral truth? Is moral knowledge possible?
Traces the development of contemporary debates in metaethics from their beginnings in the work of G. E. Moore up to the most recent debates between naturalism and non-naturalism, cognitivism and noncognitivism.
Provides for the first time a critical survey of famous figures in twentieth century metaethics such as Moore, Ayer and Mackie together with in-depth discussions of contemporary philosophers such as Blackburn, Gibbard, Wright, Harman, Railton, Sturgeon, McDowell and Wiggins.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Textbooks

328 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well structured guide to contemporary metaethics. Arguments both for and against the positions taken by some key actors in metaethical debates are clearly layed out, well explained, and well analysed.

If you are considering buying this book then make sure it is the right one for you. It is not a complete guide to metaethics, but focuses on contemporary issues around cognitivism and non-cognitivism. Also the word "introductory" is always a relative phrase and should generate the question - introductory for whom? I guess a book about metaethics is aimed at the specialist reader and this certainly is not aimed at the beginner. There is a very short and useful introduction which positions the main metaethical theories, but after that it gets into tight argument quickly. If you are reasonably used to philosophical debate and have a grounding in ethics and metaethics this could prove a very worthwhile guide. If you do not, it probably won't. (If you are looking for a gentle introduction to or explanation of metaethics - try elsewhere!)

[Imaginarium · Rating 2 out of 5]

Do yourself a favor and look for a better book...

The worst book you can imagine. The author instead of presenting the arguments in a clear way makes them more convoluted, because he wants to present them in his own style.

The structure of the book is chaotic. You're reading a chapter and then there is a random section about something completely unrelated.

The author also likes to include his own opinion and counterarguments. It looks like he's trying to show that he's also a philosopher. But for a book that is an introduction to a philosophical field I would expect just the presentation of positions, trends, arguments, and philosophers.

[Dmk · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Introduction" is not proper word... I would prefer "headless jump"...
I'm not saying I didn't like it... it was really interesting and thought-provoking book and topics very discussed criticaly and quite objectively... but it was somehow hostile to reader...
It's good book to read, it's splendid summary of some theories, but one should at first try some more introductory introduction before reading this book (for example Kane B.'s lectures on youtube). You would propably understand it, but it's hard.

[Matt Sharp · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is NOT 'an introduction' as most people would understand the term 'introduction' and it is not 'highly readable'. For someone with little-to-no background in the subject, this book was not particularly helpful. I have instead turned to Andrew Fisher's 'Metaethics: An Introduction', which is much shorter and easier to understand, and is much more suitable for someone who has not previously look at the subject in much detail.

This book is probably a useful summary for those doing more advanced study, but beginners are advised to avoid.

[Jordan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Couldn't finish the final chapter. If I don't throw in the towel here, I will spoil my interest in the subject. I'm a philosophy graduate and this is the densest work of philosophy I've ever read. The absence of signposting is completely disorienting. This is not suitable as an introduction. Cannot recommend. Go for Andrew Fisher's introduction and wait for a sequel that's more accessible than this.

[Theodore Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, in terms of introductions to Metaethics, this is a very solid book. However, I do believe that it falls short of other textbooks for reasons listed:

1. The author tends to go on rants which seem totally unrelated to the context of the chapter. During these rants, he typically invokes emotionally charged statements against certain writers and their beliefs.

2. There are many parts of the book which seem very unintelligible to the layman. Any introductory text to Metaethics should not invoke the use of logical expressions that are common amongst graduate students in Analytic Philosophy. Even in the absence of such logical expressions, the author doesn't do a great job at rendering some of the positions mentioned in the book intelligible. One notable example would be the section on Kalderon's Hermeneutic Fictionalism; which the author describes as a synthesis between Non-Cognitivist Semantic claims, and Factualism. The problem with this being, the author hadn't defined what Factualism was at any point prior, or even past his definition of Hermeneutic Fictionalism.

3. Following from two, I would say that the fact that this book has "Introduction" in its name is misleading. In all reality, this book isn't for the layman to read, but rather for those studying philosophy at university.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read for anyone interested in metaethics (the questions you are asking when you ask "why do we think something is right or wrong?" rather than "is this right or wrong?"). It does a pretty good job of presenting an overview of the different philosophical stances out there. As it is a philosophy book, the sentences are usually fairly complex and require rereading multiple times to understand what the philosophers are trying to get at. The author does a reasonable job of explaining the different perspectives in his own words and with plenty of citations.

I give 4 stars because I wouldn't highlight the volume as always displaying the clearest writing, but that it does most of the time. If you have an interest in what sorts of ways philosophers have come up with for systems that explain why we think things are right are wrong (and what that even means), this is a good introduction. (One interesting thing to note, channeling Azar Gat, is that metaethics doesn't ever seem to reference off of what humans think based on evolutionary theory. It seems like there would be aspects that would provide some explanatory power here, so I was surprised it simply isn't even considered.)

[HBrowne]

Have to admit I didn’t read the whole thing, just the specific metaethical theories I was interested in. Some of the sections, like the one on Error Theory, were really clear. I found the quasi-realism section as clear as mud.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely well structured overview of the field by an expert.

[Salman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good coverage on non-cognitivist theories but otherwise I don't recommended this book. I doesn't engage with the best arguments for and against realism and anti-realism.

[Marie]

DNF'ed at 20%. A very dense reading for a beginner, I'll try Fisher instead. Not qualified to rate the book.

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh my god, reading this book was the equivilant of running a marathon with my brain. Well organized (obsessessively so) and clear acount of various metaethical positions with some criticism. He even has a flowchart!

[Alexander]

I found this a bit of a slog at times; it's definitely a fairly advanced introduction. But overall, it was quite helpful.

[Zedder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not perfect, but great for what it is: an introduction to contemporary debates in metaethics.

[Jimmy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good chart overviewing metaethical positions in Miller's introduction.