Reviews for The collapse of democracy

The average rating for The collapse of democracy based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-08-03 00:00:00 Peter De Laaf ok, i didn't read it in one weekend-- in fact, i took two, and all of the days in the middle, and just a little of this morning. whew. here's what i've got to say: bernard williams wrote beautiful beautiful books of philosophy. human books. books of ecumenical sweep. he addressed himself to the central questions in analytic ethics, but avoided falling victim to the myopia endemic to the analytic project. and he managed, in addition, this most extraordinary thing (really, i've found nothing to match it or even come close in all of the philosophy i've yet read): he writes to account for the common sense while being neither conservative nor patronizing-- without seeming, that is, to be motivated (unbeknownst to him) by fear of radical conclusions and/or naive self-satisfaction. he never seems to lose his sense of the real weight of things. for these reasons i forgive him for always taking so long to get to the point, and for the point never being quite as clear as one might like.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-01-07 00:00:00 Daniel Jacques This 1985 survey of modern ethics comes to us from a provost at Kings College, Cambridge. Bernard Williams raises an ancient concept, “virtue,” as an alternative to what he considers today's implausible, impersonal systems of morality, which have been built up by philosophers such as Kant. The first chapters look back at the Greek ideas of virtue. Middle chapters look at modern morality as an institution; the author highlights the many faults in this public morality. Final chapters look at alternatives. The discussion covers a lot of ground, including consequentialism, utilitarianism and egalitarianism. Reading the book is at times a challenge. Williams doesn’t always make himself clear. Kant is mentioned early, but only haphazardly does his place in the theme emerge. Williams, once he explains the weaknesses with system-building moralities like Kant's, seems at a loss for alternatives. Whether values can count as knowledge is a question that complicates the challenge. The final chapters are best. Williams clearly wants to turn back to Greek virtues for a renewed foundation of modern ethics. He suggests trying to stress the importance of free inquiry and a reflective consciousness as an alternative to moral system-building. His references here to the psychology, history and sociology of mankind suggest a non-cognitive metaethics that would delimit the scope of ethical inquiry. The discussion leaves off at this point; what rules should govern public acts remain undecided. So I’m not convinced Williams has won his point that mankind must eschew moral systems for something more personal. What keeps this an interesting discussion is the distinction it makes between morality and ethics, and the non-cognitive alternatives it offers us. I recommend the book for readers who have at least some familiarity with ethical terminology.