Reviews for Morality and Moral Theory: A Reappraisal and Reaffirmation

The average rating for Morality and Moral Theory: A Reappraisal and Reaffirmation based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-02-08 00:00:00 John Kingsley Louden's Morality and Moral Theory: A Reappraisal and a Reaffirmation is a defense of moral theory against criticism from antitheorists. Louden maintains that what antitheorists too narrowly define theory, and then claim that on this definition moral theory cannot help us with the development of moral character. He argue that both Aristotle and Kant have a moral theory that is self-regarding (i.e character development is central to both), and are concerned more with practical moral engagement rather than abstract normative principles. There is much to be praised in Louden's approach (certainly his reading of Kant is nuanced and quite interesting), but I feel he overall misses the mark in the theory/anti-theory debate. Whilst Louden does take some of the antitheorists critiques to heart, his assertion that Aristotle and Kant were not doing 'bad' theory is underarggued and unconvincing.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-12-07 00:00:00 Alesia Cabral Anybody expecting to read this book for some kind of metaphysical buzz will be disappointed. Whitehead's approach is highly technical involving four dimensional geometry, event particles, "sigma primes" and a host of other self defined technical terms. Among these terms (ie a "duration") just when I felt I had grasped his meaning I came upon what to me was an inconsistency. Since it is ANW I can only conclude I hadn't grasped his meaning in the first place. He definitely pushes against the tendency to over simplification such as the separation of time and space as well as the bifurcation of nature - His motto at the end of one chapter being "seek simplicity and distrust it". To think these were a series of lectures is mind boggling but actually I found listening to the reading on Librivox more palatable than actually reading the text. I suspect the reason is that while listening you may miss something and not stopping to re-listen what you DO get is the flow of the text and an understanding of the general meaning of the text which is about as far as I can muster. A more academic mind (which I lack) would probably prefer to read the text more analytically. I found the summaries of his chapters the most enlightening - the technicalities in the middle sometimes made me want to give up. I am pleased I managed to complete the book and look forward to having my second crack at "Process and Reality"