Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular". At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the (...) whole. How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically? To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated? Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life. He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death. Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere. The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified. Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible. (shrink)

Thomas Nagel addresses the conflict between the claims of the group and those of the individual. Nagel attempts to clarify the nature of the conflict – one of the most fundamental problems in moral and political theory – and argues that its reconciliation is the essential task of any legitimate political system.

In the first systematic study of the philosophy of Thomas Nagel, Alan Thomas discusses Nagel's contrast between the "subjective" and the "objective" points of view throughout the various areas of his wide ranging philosophy. Nagel's original and distinctive contrast between the subjective view and our aspiration to a "view from nowhere" within metaphysics structures the chapters of the book. A "new Humean" in epistemology, Nagel takes philosophical scepticism to be both irrefutable and yet to indicate a profound truth (...) about our capacity for self-transcendence. The contrast between subjective and objective views is then considered in the case of the mind, where consciousness proves to be the central aspect of mind that contemporary theorising fails to acknowledge adequately. The second half of the book analyses Nagel's work on moral and political philosophy where he has been most deeply influential. Topics covered include the contrast between agent-relative and agent-neutral reasons and values, Nagel's distinctive version of a hybrid ethical theory, his discussion of life's meaningfulness and finally his sceptical arguments about whether a liberal society can reconcile the conflicting moral demands of self and other. (shrink)

Death.--The absurd.--Moral luck.--Sexual perversion.--War and massacre.--Ruthlessness in public life.--The policy of preference.--Equality.--The fragmentation of value.--Ethics without biology.--Brain bisection and the unity of consciousness.--What is it like to be a bat?--Panpsychism.--Subjective and objective.

Should the hard questions of philosophy matter to ordinary people? In this down-to-earth, nonhistorical guide, Thomas Nagel, the distinguished author of Mortal Questions and The View From Nowhere, brings philosophical problems to life, revealing in vivid, accessible prose why they have continued to fascinate and baffle thinkers across the centuries. Arguing that the best way to learn about philosophy is to tackle its problems head-on, Nagel turns to some of the most important questions we can ask about ourselves. Do (...) we really have free will? Why should we be moral? What is the relation between our minds and our brains? Is there life after death? How should we feel about death? In a universe so vast, billions of light years across, can anything we do with our lives really matter? And does it matter if it doesn't matter? These are perennial questions we ask about the human condition, and Nagel probes them, and others like them, thoughtfully, clearly, and with humor. He states his own opinions freely but with refreshing modesty, always leaving it open to readers to entertain other solutions, encouraging them to think for themselves. Nagel is eminently qualified to introduce the uninitiated to the world of philosophical inquiry. Singled out by the Chicago Literary Review as "one of the sharpest analytic philosophers in America today," he has been praised in the New York Times Book Review for writing "sensitively and elegantly" and in the Times Literary Supplement for his ability, rare among philosophers, to combine "profundity with clarity and simplicity of expression." Never rarefied, What Does It All Mean? opens our eyes to a side of the world we rarely consider, demonstrating that philosophy is no empty study but an indispensable key to understanding our lives. It challenges us to think hard and clearly, to ask questions, to try out ideas and raise possible objections to them--in short, to become philosophers ourselves. (shrink)

From the apathetic reaction to atrocities committed in Vietnam by the United States and its allies, one may conclude that moral restrictions on the conduct of war command almost as little sympathy among the general public as they do among those charged with the formation of U.S. military policy. Even when restrictions on the conduct of warfare are defended, it is usually on legal grounds alone: their moral basis is often poorly understood. I wish to argue that certain (...) restrictions are neither arbitrary nor merely conventional, and that their validity does not depend simply on their usefulness. There is, in other words, a moral basis for the rules of war, even though the conventions now officially in force are far from giving it perfect expression. (shrink)

This book consists of two essays that are related to each other: "Gut Feelings and Moral Knowledge" and "Moral Reality and Moral Progress." The longer second essay has not been previously published. Both are concerned with moral epistemology and our means of access to moral truth; both are concerned with moral realism and with the resistance to subjectivist and reductionist accounts of morality; and both are concerned with the historical development of moral knowledge. (...) The second essay also proposes an account of the historical development of moral truth, according to which it does not share the timelessness of scientific truth. This is because moral truth must be based on reasons that are accessible to the individuals to whom they apply, and such accessibility depends on historical developments. (shrink)

Considers whether moral reasoning is fundamental and inescapable. Nagel argues that we cannot step outside the procedures of justification and criticism employed in moral and practical reason and regard them as mere expressions of contingent local or cultural, or, even more broadly, human practices. Nagel rejects Bernard Williams's claim that, unlike reflective theoretical reason, reflective practical reason, of which moral reason is an example, is always first‐personal. Targeting Hume's skepticism, Nagel argues that a gap exists between inclination (...) and decision that requires one to employ reason to determine what oneself or any other person should do when confronted by a given set of circumstances. (shrink)

This book collects Thomas Nagel's recent philosophical reflections on topics of fundamental interest: ethics, moral psychology, science and religion, death and the holocaust, and the metaphysics of mind. Among the figures discussed are Peter Singer, Alvin Plantinga, Christine Korsgaard, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch, T. M. Scanlon, Ronald Dworkin, Samuel Scheffler, Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, Joshua Greene, and Daniel Dennett. Nagel consistently defends a realist interpretation of moral truth and resists reductive attempts to subsume ethics to (...) psychology and evolutionary theory. He also defends a pluralistic conception of the content of morality against utilitarianism, including deontological elements such as rights and special responsibilities. A realist outlook also informs his discussions of metaphysical and epistemological questions. The book closes with tributes to a number of people Nagel has known over the course of his career. The essays are all addressed to a general audience, and should appeal not only to philosophers but to anyone interested in current attempts to understand human life, human values, and how we fit into the world. (shrink)

Each of us begins with a set of concerns, desires, and interests of our own, and each of us can recognize that the same is true of others. We can then remove ourselves in thought from our particular position in the world and think simply of all those people, without singling out as I the one we happen to be. From this abstracted impersonal standpoint, the content and character of different individual standpoints remain unchanged. The impersonal standpoint plays an essential (...) role in the evaluation of political institutions. Any political theory that aspires to moral decency must try to devise and justify a form of institutional life, which answers to the real strength of impersonal values while recognizing that they are not all we have to reckon with. (shrink)

One of the most difficult and widely discussed questions in recent moral theory is that of the status of human rights—the rights of individuals not to be violated, sacrificed, or used in certain ways, even in the service of valuable ends, either by other individuals or by governments and intermediate institutions. The reason for claiming such things as rights—apart from the natural tendency for rhetoric to escalate—is that they have some claim to be given priority over other values, a (...) claim to be taken care of first, for everyone, even if this cannot be justified by balancing their utility against other components of the general good or general welfare. There is probably no harm in attaching the term “right” to the minima that ought thus to be guaranteed to everyone—provided it does not produce confusion with negative rights, which are likewise equally to be accorded to everyone, and provided it does not beg any questions about the relative priorities between positive and negative rights, should they conflict. (shrink)

It is a consequence of this account of political legitimacy that legitimate government will not always be possible. If fundamental interests or values are too radically opposed, it may be impossible to find enough common impartial motivation to support a framework within which all reasonable parties must agree they should be resolved. The license individuals have to concentrate on their own lives and those they specially care about is morally unproblematic, only if they can exercise it in the context of (...) a just social order, which gives expression to their moral impersonal motives without encroaching unacceptably on the personal domain. (shrink)

In contrast to the difficulties faced by the pursuit of equality, the protection for each individual of a sphere of personal autonomy is the object of a well‐developed and effective tradition of ethical and institutional design. Its main resource is the definition and protection of individual rights. The recognition of a system of rights is a moral and social practice that permits some of the relations between persons to be governed by pure procedural justice. Other values besides autonomy or (...) individuality itself influence the design of such practices, and some rights are, to an important extent, instrumental in their justification. (shrink)

The general form of solution to the problem of reconciling the standpoint of the collectivity with the standpoint of the individual is through the design of institutions, which penetrate and in part reconstruct their individual members, by producing differentiation within the self between public and private roles, and further differentiation subordinate to these roles. In a sense, the aim is to externalize through social institutions the most impartial requirements of the impersonal standpoint, but our support of those institutions depends on (...) an internal differentiation, which exploits the natural complexity of the self. (shrink)

It is not always easy to prevent egalitarianism in political morality from infecting other values. If one is really uneasy about socio‐economic stratification, one can become uneasy about cultural, educational, and aesthetic stratification as well. Moral equality does not mean that people are equal in all respects. There are values, which are not just the values that things have for persons, and such values provide legitimate goals for a society. Nagel argues that some form of egalitarian impartiality should be (...) the dominant value. (shrink)

What is reasonable for individuals cannot be determined at the level of individual practical reason alone, but depends also on some judgment about the collective result of everyone's following those principles. Nagel argues that a principle of universal acceptability is a genuine and nonvacuous alternative to the pure dominance of the impersonal standpoint. This alternative allows the personal standpoint an independent role in the justification of universal principles, and explains why some solutions are morally plausible and others are not.

What sort of accommodation between egalitarian impartiality and personal motivation can pass the test of acceptability from all points of view at once? To consider this question, we must descend from the level of egalitarian impartiality and regard things instead from the mixed point of view of real members of a society. Nagel argues that an acceptable societal framework for apportioning negative interpersonal responsibilities is a condition of the moral acceptability of strict limitations on negative responsibility in the rules (...) of individual conduct that govern personal relations within it. (shrink)

Modern political theories agree that a society must treat its members equally in some respects, but they disagree over the respects, and the priorities among them. Nagel advances a strong equalitarian social ideal and presents a case for extending the reach of equality in a legitimate political system beyond what is customary in modern welfare states, and then reflects on the great difficulties, practical and moral, of doing so. He also calls into question the motivational viability of an egalitarian (...) position based on the conception of Kantian unanimity advanced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. (shrink)

The task of discovering the conditions of legitimacy is traditionally conceived as that of finding a way to justify a political system to everyone who is required to live under it. If the justification is successful, no one will have grounds for moral complaint about the way it takes into account and weighs his interests and point of view. Nagel uses Kant's unanimity criterion in relation to political institutions and to the individual lives of their members; he maintains that (...) unanimity could be achieved by us in many respects as we are, provided that we are also reasonable and committed within reason to modifying our claims, requirements, and motives in a direction that makes a common framework of justification possible. (shrink)

The duality of standpoints makes its appearance in political theory with particular prominence as the root of an old and persistent problem – the problem of utopianism. A political ideal, however attractive it may be to contemplate, is utopian if reasonable individuals cannot be motivated to live by it. But a political system that is completely tied down to individual motives may fail to embody any ideal at all. The danger of utopianism comes from the political tendency, in pursuit of (...) the ideal of moral equality, to put too much pressure on individual motives or even to attempt to transcend them entirely through an impersonal transformation of social individuals. A nonutopian solution requires a proper balance between these two elements, and that requires knowing what they are and how they interact. (shrink)

Thomas Nagel's conservative position of the political conception for world politics and his insightful ?Minimum Humanitarian Morality? (MHM) view on global justice are laudable. He admits that the path from anarchy to justice must go through injustice. But Nagel does not clearly identify the conditions under which we put up with global injustice. This paper reviews the conception of MHM through the lens of the institutional political economy. In my view, to recognize the degree of structural failure (weakness in (...) governance) as well as the degree of transition failure (elite bargain or personalization of power being interlocked) in each state can give us a hint on how to conceptualize and apply Nagel's MHM. We also argue that the scope and degree of humanitarian aid may vary in accordance with the options to global justice open to each state. (shrink)

The political and ideological turmoil of the late 1960's stimulated among Anglo-American philosophers a new interest in applying moral philosophy to the problems of contemporary society, and a search for critical perspectives on Marx and Marxist thought. These essays, originally published in Philosophy & Public Affairs, contribute to both these areas in the form of new Marxist scholarship and in illuminating the way in which Marxist criticism and social theory bear on contemporary analytic moral philosophy and current (...) class='Hi'>moral problems. Originally published in 1980. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A RHETORIC OF MOTIVES: THOMAS ON OBLIGATION AS RATIONAL PERSUASION THOMAS s. HIBBS Thomas Aquinas College Santa Paula, California 'TIHE PROMINENCE of moral obligation in modern hies is l'ooted in an early modern claim, which reached uition in Kant, concerning the primacy of the right ov;er the good.1 Although Kant was not the first to make such a claim, his texts have had the most (...) palpable influence on modern moral discourse.2 Many contemporary moral philosophers, however, have!attempted to discredit the Kantian p11oject.3 In so doing, they often advance wlternative views 1 In his highly influential work, John Rawls comments on the importance of the g-0od and the right in contemporary moral philosophy, "The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good.... The structure Df an ethical theory is... largely determined by how it defines and connects these two basic notions," A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 24. 2 There are numerous precursors of Kant, both in the nascent rationalism of early modern science and -0£ late scholasticism and in the project of the "rationalization" of human life characteristic of classical Protestant moral thought. It was Nietzsche, of course, who saw Kant as a most heinous example of secularized Christianity. On the "rationalization" of the moral life in Protestantism, see Max Weber, Die protestantisohe Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie, Volume l (TU.bingen: Mohr, 1920), pp. 17-206. Given the convergence of these discursive fields in early modern thought and society, one might be inclined to see Kant as providing the theoretical foundations for the common moral consciousness. a I am thinking -0f Philippa Foot, "Virtues and Vices," and "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives," in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 1-18, 157-173; Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) and " Ought and Moral Obligation," in Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 293 ~94 THOMAS S. HIBBS characteristic of pre-modern moral philosophy, particularly of rthe 1 writings of Aristotle and Aquill!as. While consensus appears to have exnnerated Aristotle of the taint of Kantianism, the status of Tihomas's moral philosophy is still uncertain in the minds of many.4 Thomas's1 moral iphilosophy is, I believe, pre-modern. Throughout his writings he maintains the primaicy of the good ovier rthe right, the exact inverse of the Kantian position. By modern standards, Thomas's conception of obligation,seems impov;erished, almost naive. He devotes no independent treatise, or.for that matter no single quaestio, to the question of mom1l obligation. Francisco Suarez, one of Thomas's early modern oommenta.tors, found the latter's view to be muddled and unworkable. While Sua11ez criticizes Thomas's view, he fails to note that he 1and Thomas do not sha11e the same universe of discourse. What Suarez is after-a " theory of obligation "--is not extant in Thomas's texts. In fact, Suarez contributes to the deontological turn in the history of ethics. He pp. 114-123; Peter Geach, "Good and Evil," in Theories of Ethics, edited by Philippa Foot (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 64-73; Elizabeth Anscombe, "Modern Moral Philosophy" in her Oolleoted Philosophical Papers. Volume 3, l!Jthios, Religion and Politios (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), pp. 26-42; Alasdair Macintyre, "Hume on 'Is' and 'Ought'," in Against the Self-Images of the Age (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978), pp. 109·129. While all are critical of Kant, none of these writers advocates a straightforward return to Aristotle or Thomas. Williams, in fact, is sceptical about the viability of Aristotelianism. This litany, moreover, of Kantian critics is not intended to give the impression that there is a consensus on the failure of Kant's project. There are formidable contemporary representatives of the Kantian school. See, for instance, William Frankena, Thinking About Morality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1980); Thomas Nagel, The Possibility of Altruism (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1970); and Alan Donagan, The Theory of Morality (Chicago: The University of Chicago... (shrink)

This book's thirty essays explore philosophically the nature and morality of sexual perversion, cybersex, masturbation, homosexuality, contraception, same-sex marriage, promiscuity, pedophilia, date rape, sexual objectification, teacher-student relationships, pornography, and prostitution. Authors include Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Nagel, Alan Goldman, John Finnis, Sallie Tisdale, Robin West, Alan Wertheimer, John Corvino, Cheshire Calhoun, Jerome Neu, and Alan Soble, among others. A valuable resource for sex researchers as well as undergraduate courses in the philosophy of sex.

Nagel' s pessimistic conclusion that current welfare state arrangements approximate to the most pragmatically effective way of reconciling the demands of morality and of an egalitarian liberalism, while not removing a deep seated incoherence between these view, can be resisted. The objective/subjective dichotomy, in this case applied via the agent-neutral/agent-relative distinction, is identified as his problematic assumption: understood in Hegelian terms as the "placing" of different categories of reason, even a minimal realism makes it difficult to understand how embedding agent-relativity (...) alongside the agent-neutral can be understood as adding to the relevant values, just by moving from a more particular to a less particular conception of the world. This transition also cannot be seen as giving us insight into the intrinsicality of certain values, as that would be to renege on the idea that the subjective point of view is still a point of view on value and one that is expanded, not renounced. It is argued that the standard objection that contractualism is fatally circular is even more plausible in the case of its use as a theory of political legitimacy and Nagel's use of it is quite open about this circularity. Criticising Nagel's philosophical anthropology allows one to develop his positive arguments for egalitarianism; the development of civic virtue, from a perspective in which "the personal" acknowledges the demands of others in one's political community, leads to a political egalitarianism located in a distinct political morality independent of a moralised politics. (shrink)

A comprehensive yet concise introduction to central topics, debates, and techniques of moral philosophy in the analytic tradition, this volume combines a thematic, issue-oriented format with rigorous standards of clarity and precision. Thomas introduces fundamental concepts and terms, proceeding through a step-by-step exploration of five general areas of debate: the specification of moral judgment; moral judgment and the moral standard; the justification of moral judgment; logic, reasoning, and moral judgment; and moral judgment (...) and moral responsibility. Key historical and contemporary figures in moral philosophy, including Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Mill, Hare, Ross, Nagel, Foot, Stevenson, and Dancy, are used effectively as a means of examining the topics themselves. (shrink)

Anti-naturalists share the conviction that something is wrong with the naturalistic conceptual frame and with the idea that in principle all events are explainable by using the means of physics. Physicalist naturalism is the modern form of old fashioned materialism. And there is no doubt that naturalism is still going strong notwithstanding its critiques. In ethics the boom of present-day Kantian constructivism can be understood as the last and maybe the most sophisticated “naturalist” answer to the realist challenge in ethics. (...) Assuming that our language of morals is objectivist as John Mackie conceded , the project of analytical philosophy to transform ethics into philosophy of language showing that the ordinary language use of normative predicates like ought or good can and should be interpreted as expressing subjective attitudes, collapsed.To be sure analytical metaethics produced a broad spectrum of quite different subjectivits theories from Ayer’s and Stevenson’s emot .. (shrink)

This monograph is a systematic defence of the views of key figures in the 18th-century sentimentalist tradition. It aims to explain, to borrow Thomas Nagel's phrase, the very possibility of altruism in a way that engages with contemporary meta-ethics. The details of the account are primarily taken from the work of Francis Hutcheson, although the work of Shaftesbury also receives extended consideration. The author argues that the basis of our admiration for disinterested altruism is simply an innate human instinct, (...) an ‘affective sensitivity’ that is distinct from our capacity to reason. We instinctively seek our own happiness and instinctively approve of the disinterested altruism displayed by others. This affective sensitivity is distinctively valuable, essential for motivation and a crucial element in the justification of altruism. Filonowicz's defence of his central thesis is interleaved with his readings of the historical works that constitute, in his words, the ‘short and rather melancholic’ history of the sentimentalist school .The key philosophical question is what a Hutchesonian moral sense is supposed to be. The Hutchesonian conception seems an unhappy hybrid …. (shrink)

This paper interprets Bernard Williams's claim that all practical reasons must meet the internal reasons constraint. It is argued that this constraint is independent of any substantive Humean claims about reasons and its rationale is a content scepticism about the capacity of pure reason to supply reasons for action. The final sections attempt a positive reconciliation of the internal reasons account with the motivation for external reasons, namely, securing practical objecitivy in the form of a commitment to impartiality. Impartiality is (...) given a contractualist interpretation in the limited sense that socialised agents have a central disposition to hold those reasons that are defensible to reasonable interlocutors, but this is not a substantive constraint on their content. Such a commitment plays a structural role in motivation illustrated by the analogy of the internalisation of a relativised a priori principle. Theorists of moral motivation such as Nagel and Scheffler have uncovered the importance of such structural motivations, but they are best treated as an architectonic feature of a socialised agent's motivational set, not as a principle or motive akin to other principles or motives within that set. This gives us critical leverage on the motivational sets of individuals that goes beyond launching "optimistic internal reasons" statements at them, but it does not violate Williams's constraints on the idea of a practical reason in general. (shrink)

Engaging, accessible, and up-to-date, this work introduces the central debates of English language philosophy since 1945. It begins with a brief description of philosophical debate during the first half of the twentieth century, offering fascinating discussions of writings by Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, Quine, and Sellars. It then describes several ensuing philosophical debates that have shaped philosophical discussions since the 1960s, addressing the Davidson/Dummett debate on language; the Kripke/Lewis debate on possible worlds; the Popper/Kuhn debate on the justification in epistemology; the (...) debates on materialism, functionalism, and dual-aspect theories of mind; and recent work in moral psychology, metaethics, and normative ethics. It also includes a critical discussion of Rorty's metaphilosophical skepticism and pays extensive attention to writings of Strawson, Putnam, Evans, McDowell, Williams, Nagel, and many other contemporary philosophers. (shrink)

Cet article propose une analyse critique de la conception de la liberté d’expression chez Thomas Nagel. Sa thèse concilie le refus de limiter le droit à l’expression individuelle, même dans le cas de discours racistes ou haineux, et l’idée d’un contrôle spontané de l’usage de cette liberté, par les conventions sociales et la culture civique. Ces deux idées ont pour fondement commun la distinction que Nagel pose entre liberté privée et liberté publique, mais aussi des présupposés moraux et sociaux (...) qui peuvent entrer en tension. L’examen critique de ces éléments permet de discuter le rôle et la pertinence possibles de la référence qui est faite, dans certains textes juridiques internationaux, aux exigences de la morale comme limite de la liberté d’expression. (shrink)

Contemporary discussions of practical reason often refer vaguely to the Kantian conception of reasons as an alternative to various means-ends theories, but it is rarely clear what this is supposed to be, except that somehow moral concerns are supposed to fare better under the Kantian conception. The theories of Nagel, Gewirth, Darwall, and Donagan have been labeled “Kantian” because they deviate strikingly from standard preference models, but their roots in Kant have not been traced in detail and important differences (...) may go unnoticed. All this is not surprising, of course, because Kant’s conception of practical reason is inseparable from his ideas of freedom, which are notoriously difficult and controversial. It is hard enough to characterize these ideas accurately in Kantian terminology, harder still to explain them in terms of contemporary debates about reasons for action. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 189 progress achieved in each chapter. Further, the text includes study questions at the end of each chapter that make for a challenging review plus exercises at the back of the book which test the studrnt's skills. The teacher will find this text a imist useful tool of instruction. One can lecture on the material in one's own words. The student can read the text. Then teacher (...) and student can discuss the material as well as have interesting sessions based on the various exercises provided. ]'or those with the time, the reading· exercises offer another rich area for intellectual growth. This text is suited for superior high school seniors, college students, and excellent as a review course at the seminary level. The latter is important. Many Catholic seminaries are providing a year or at most two years of philosophy. Some subjects are given less time than needed and logic often is ignored or has a small share in the curriculum schedule. The Spangler text is ideal for such situations. Her explanations of each point in logic are crystal clear, her illustrations abundant, and her skillful use of charts to give a comprehensive picture of the whole and parts of logic is outstanding. As one who has used the text for three years in its manuscript form, the verdict is: Try it. For students interested in a further development of logic a series of appendices is provided, including a fine one on symbolic logic. Dominican House of Studies Washington, D.C. RAYMOND SMITH, O.P. The View from Nowhere. By THOMAS NAGEL. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Pp. 244. $19.95. With the opening words of his Introduction, Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University, makes clear the probll'rn that his book will treat: This book is about a single problem: how to combine the perspective of a particular person inside the world with an objective view of that same world, the person and his viewpoint included. It is a problem that faces every creature with an impulse and the capacity to transcend its particular point of view and to conceive of the world as a whole (p. 3). Steeped in linguistic philosophy and in contemporary analysis Prof. Nagel is far from the caricature of the linguistic analyst who fiddles with word games while philosophy as metaphysics is reduced to ashes. Rather, with an evident commitment and zeal Nagel argues that the single prob- 190 BOOK REVIEWS lem he explores is central to both life and thought. Not only does he view it as the most fundamental issue about knowledge, freedom, morality, and the self, but he also believes that our reaction to the problem will greatly color both our view of our lives and our interpersonal relationships. This teacher of philosophy is no disinterested observer. Not excessively academic in either his interests or his mode of expressing those interests, Nagel is concerned with many of the questions that have preoccupied the great thinkers. In his eleven chapters Nag·el, using as a fulcrum what he refers to as the internal-external tension, examines the metaphysics of mind, theories of knowledge, value, ethics, and death, and never seems to settle for the too-easy answer. According to Nagel a view or form of thought is more objective the less it relies on the position of the individual in the world or on the particular type of personality that he has. The wider the spectrum of subjectiv.e types to which a view is accessible the more objective the view is. So, while a perspective might be more objective in relation to a personal view of an individual, that same perspective could be viewed as less objective when compared to a more theoretical view. Nagel suggests that we view reality as a series of concentric spheres and that we progressively reach those spheres as we detach ourselves from the contingencies of our particular subjective perspectives. Nagel's option for objectivity is clear early on: I shall offer a defense and also a critique of objectivity. Both are necessary in the present intellectual climate, for objectivity is both underrated and overrated, sometimes by the same... (shrink)

Une intuition commune et tenace veut que notre discours moral renvoie à une réalité indépendante de nos jugements, lesquels peuvent ainsi être dits vrais ou faux. Des objections tout aussi communes soulignent que cette conception est mal adaptée au discours de la science, conduit au dogmatisme et néglige la dimension pratique de la moralité. La «querelle du réalisme» moral reprend au niveau philosophique ces intuitions et porte ce débat au plan de l’argumentation rationnelle. Le présent ouvrage fournit quelques (...) pièces importantes de cette querelle qui, même si elle parcourt la philosophie occidentale depuis ses débuts, connaît un renouveau dans le cadre de la tradition dite «analytique», en même temps qu’elle renouvelle celle-ci de l’intérieur tant les considérations ontologiques et métaphysiques qu’elle implique ont. (shrink)

The present article discusses the relation of Th. Nagel’s ethics of altruism with kantian ethics. According to Nagel himself, his position resembles that of Kant in two respects: it defends the thesis of the autonomy of moral motivation, and it bases moral on a determinate self-conception of persons. However, differently from Kant, the principle of Nagel’s ethics is just the modest presupposition that persons essentially understand themselves as being one among a plurality of other persons. Starting from the (...) nagelian argument in The Possibility of Altruism (1970), but contemplating also Nagel’s more recent position in The Last Word (1999), it is argued that in order to defend his conception of a rational ethics in a convincing way, Nagel has to approximate himself more to the kantian foundation of ethics than he wants to admit. (shrink)