Reddit mentions: The best ethics & moral philosophy books

This is a deep question, and not one that can be easily answered in a Reddit post, but one place to start might be to consider what is necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, for a life to have a chance at being meaningful. Barring extreme views on the matter, I think that any meaningful life would need to include a sufficient amount of "well being." But what constitutes well being? There are three classical positions here.

The first is the hedonistic view, which basically states that pleasure is what matters for well-being. Egoist Hedonists would say that pleasurable experiences for oneself is what matters most, while Utilitarian Hedonists would say that maximizing the pleasurable experiences for everyone is what should be done.

Desire satisfaction theory states that pleasure alone is not sufficient. Rather, fulfilling one's aim's or central life projects is what is really matters for a person's well being, and this could involve what someone desires to see in the life of another. This is easily seen in the example of parenting, or creating great works of literature. Perhaps putting in a little less effort and relaxing a bit more would lead the parent or writer to be happier, but because their central life project would suffer, desire satisfaction theory would say that they are "less well off." It would only be the case that they could be better off if they cared less about their projects. So long as they value them greatly, then achieving these aims trumps happiness or pleasurable experiences.

Lastly, there is Objective List Theory. This is the doctrine that there are some things that are objectively good, regardless of whether any individual aims at them or not. The exact goods on the list will vary, but common items include things like "true friendship, skill mastery, knowledge, virtue, etc." An objective list theorist who puts true friendship on the list will say that someone who's life lacks this element is less well off, even if they do not feel that way themselves, because true friendship is objectively good whether or not the individual in question realizes it.

So all these are theories of well being. Understanding how they work and shape our thinking is probably good groundwork for being able to go on to construct ideas about what it is to live a life that is "meaningful." Well being and meaning are not identical properties. Could it be possible to have a life that is less well off but more meaningful? I'm not sure. It's interesting to think about. Right now I'm currently reading about theories of personal identity, and how our understanding of what it means to be a person can shape our ethical views. I'm currently reading Parfit's Reasons and Persons. His view is that there is no "deep further fact" about identity. Your relationship to your future self is similar to your relationship to your friend. You are different people. It's interesting to consider these ideas. There is no end to the rabbit hole, as I'm sure you know.

What is your area of interest?

This is generally the answer I give to anyone who's unsure about specifically what they're interested in. You probably wanna spend a little while doing "general reading" so that you can find out what subjects interest you the most. Here are a few introductory books which are commonly recommended in no particular order:

• Think by Simon Blackburn
  
• A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton
  
• An Introduction to Philosophy by Jon Nuttall
  
  These books all cast a very large net. The Warburton book (from what I remember) gives a more chronological account since it's concerned with the history of the ideas as well as the ideas themselves. Though, this was my first introduction to philosophy and worked just as well as any other.
  
  Given the authors you've mentioned, you might be particularly interested in the religious philosophy, ethics and political philosophy sections but you sound open to anything new. A tip: if you get your hands on one or two or these books, as you go through them, make notes on authors or particular ideas that you find interesting so that you can branch your reading out independently based on your preferences. These books will very much be discussing the classics of western philosophy like Hume, Descartes, Aquinas, Kant (maybe) etc at least a bit so I would also recommend searching out contemporary writers or 2nd hand sources if you're interested in the ideas of these historical figures. I say this because diving into their original works early on will be intimidating, exhausting and probably uninteresting. You may well find them difficult to interpret without knowing before hand what they're getting at. Having some idea of their historical context also helps. Contemporary writers are usually more approachable and sometimes more relevant.
  
  ​
  
  If you're also looking for good introductions to other topics like physics, I could help you out. In the spirit of this sub, I'll recommend you a couple writers that are philosophy literate. Philosophy has gotten a bad rap from popular science icons like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, recently. Lawrence Krauss probably dominates in terms of ignorance but hey that's just my opinion. Nye, on the other hand, has recently changed his tune. Don't let this put you off because there are popular science writers like Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli who know their philosophy and understand the historical and conceptual importance of philosophy to their science. Here are my recommendations:
  
  
• The Big Picture by Sean Carroll
  
• From Eternity to Here by Sean Carroll
  
• Seven Brief Lessons on Physics by Carlo Rovelli
  
• Reality Is Not What It Seems by Carlo Rovelli
  
  The Big Picture is Sean Carroll's "treatise" on his philosophy, essentially. It covers is views about knowledge, values and science all in one. (Scare quotes because the book is intended for a large audience and the word 'treatise' makes it sound a lot more dense than it really is). In it, he introduces Bayesian epistemology which is quite a popular idea in contemporary philosophy of science.
  
  From Eternity to Here essentially aims to answer quite metaphysical questions about our experience of time like where it "comes from" and in some parts he aims to resolve paradoxes relating to time travel all from the point of view of our best theories of physics. He also discusses big bang cosmology and, throughout, pays great respect to other philosophical views on the questions he's discussing.
  
  Seven Brief Lessons is basically what it says on the tin. It's a very short introduction and is probably the best place to start off reading popular physics (at least on this list).
  
  Reality Is Not What It Seems is a discussion of the history of physics essentially from the ancient greeks up until modern speculation on quantum gravity. Rovelli also pays great respects to the 'physicists of antiquity' by discussing ancient greek ideas about physics and metaphysics within the light of modern physics. He gives credit where credit is due and then some.
  
  Hope this was helpful.
  
  Oh, P.S. A few people have recommended the SEP but I'd be careful with it since plenty of the articles on there get pretty damn technical pretty quick and even sometimes they assume knowledge that you may not have. It's usually best used to accompany other reading and when you know what you're looking for (in terms of author, period, topic etc). Going on there and just blindly searching by topic probably isn't a good idea. A similar resource which presents topics in slightly less detail is the IEP.
  
  Here's a good youtube channel to check out too.

Are you talking about what to study this summer?

I haven't read through that guide too much but here's a few points:

The first three bullets under "background" are probably very useful in a wide range of contexts and problems. Definitely you can't go wrong starting there, and you probably should. And when you've mastered that, honestly, you can just go further into AI and ML methods (by the time that you finish, you should have a really good idea of what else you are interested in and what else there is to read about, and you'll be asking "where can I learn more about the theory behind nonlinear SVMs" in r/machinelearning rather than asking us for a general syllabus). You really won't go wrong if you spend 90% of your time just learning how to do these things really well, IMO. And practice implementation of these things so you have practical skills you can demonstrate and so that you remember it all really well. Now maybe you won't be on top of everything in the AI safety field the way it's currently going, if you just do this, but you'll be flexible to work on lots of things, and you can get up to speed on those things later on.

Also there's a lot of stuff there, so you can specialize. It's okay if you decide that you really don't understand game theory and just want to learn about programming and statistics, for instance. But you should at least start to explore every subject just to see what it's about.

Then if you want to go into value learning in particular, you'll want to look at preference inference and reward engineering in that syllabus. I'd recommend getting to at least the majority of the priority-2 stuff in the first 3 categories before turning to this stuff, though it's okay to explore it earlier. Also there is some contemporary work on machine ethics, much of it listed here, but I'm honestly not too impressed by it (unless I'm wrong or there are some modern papers which I haven't seen, it seems to be very much stuck in technical methods which are not cutting edge in the least), and I don't think it's important to learn, but you can take a look at some of it when you like. It's probably a good idea to look at Wallach and Allen's book at some point, or at the very least to look up what people mean when they talk about top-down vs bottom-up morality and the arguments for each. I think Allen has a paper summarizing it which you can probably find.

The moral theory section in that syllabus is pretty poor. At least, it's not an actual overview of the relevant aspects of moral theory; it's just a collection of odd papers and ideas which AI safety folks have happened to find interesting and useful, and some of it is other areas of philosophy besides moral theory. If you are new to philosophy, I worry it will give a skewed picture of what it's really about, and you won't be able to interpret them correctly if you don't have some experience understanding and discussing the bodies of philosophical work where there is already lots of secondary material and experts who can readily check your ideas and understanding (e.g.: you read Reasons and Persons, then since lots of people have talked about Reasons and Persons and there's lots of reviews and discussions about it on the Internet, you'll be able to talk about it and lots of people can tell you if you have a good understanding of philosophical writing and theory. Compared to starting with something like Ord's paper on moral trade, where you'll immediately know more about moral trade than 90% of philosophers do, which is great for your confidence but not so great for your education in philosophy). And on a higher level, there should be more diversity in philosophical views than just the things that these people are currently interested in. This is more important if you want to research value learning and alignment, and less important otherwise.

If you want to really understand moral theory well enough to talk about and design systems which learn it, I recommend this collection (have not looked at it, aside from a few of its readings, but I researched and asked opinions to determine that it's probably the best for this purpose): https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Theory-Anthology-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0470671602/ref=pd_cart_vw_2_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BE9N6J1887PCY9HH5PE4 If you want something shorter and/or free, you can go to plato.stanford.edu and read about whatever moral theories you feel interested in ("consequentialism", "virtue ethics", "deontological ethics", etc). Reasons and Persons is good too (haven't read it either but I'm familiar with many of its ideas). Now the papers in the Berkeley reading list are still worth looking at, if you read other stuff too.

But unlike /u/TheConstipatedPepsi, with respect, I don't recommend starting with moral theory rather than the technical stuff, because it really won't teach you how to do math and computer science, it will just delay the point at which you finally learn those mathematical and computational foundations. (Though some of those papers do contain bits of math, and in that respect they can get you a little accustomed to how math is applied and notated in research papers, which is a decent skill to develop early on, so that might be a decent exercise to spend ~5% of your time on.)

Also make sure you're on top of your scheduling and habits etc so you don't get off track. Check out Thomas Frank's channel on Youtube for advice on that. Not specific to AI at all, but still. It's good to know about. Hope that helps.

> This is seriously one of the weakest objection I've ever heard against the PSR. What does this even mean? Of course God is not obligated to create our universe or any anything for that matter. How does this affect the PSR? There is no explanation other than the 'because'.

It shows that the PSR is self refuting because even a god cannot satisfy it. To put it into a more logical form:

r/https://bit.ly/2wJRxaL

Please feel free to refute that.

> Next: the brute fact response. This still leaves our most basic thirst about understanding reality unquenched. The universe is contingent; there is no way around even when involving science, math, etc--whatever. If it is possible for it to not exist, it is contingent.

Our thirst is technically irrelevant, since we can thirst for things like the color of jealousy, which obviously has no answer. What matters is part of logic. Regarding the possibility of the universe not existing, that assumes it is logically possible that the universe not exist. But so too is god. It is not logically necessary that the god theists believe in exist because other conceptions of god are possible. Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?


Logical necessity cannot explain this scenario. There is no way to show in principle why god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and not one just slightly different, or even radically different, or no universe at all. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to desire to create our universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact. He can try and say "It's because god wanted a relationship with us," but that wouldn't answer the question at all. Why did god want a relationship with us? Is that logically necessary? Could god exist without wanting a relationship with anyone? And still, even if god wanted a relationship, why did he have to desire this particular universe? There are an infinitude of logically possible universes god could have desired that would allow him to have a relationship with someone else that for no reason god didn't timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create. A theist can also try to argue that "our universe is the best of all possible worlds, and therefore god had to desire it." But this claim is absurd on its face. I can think of a world with just one more instance of goodness or happiness, and I've easily just thought of a world that's better.


The theist is going to have to eventually come to a brute fact when seriously entertaining answers to these questions. Once he acknowledges that there is no logically necessary reason god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and that god could have timelessly and eternally existed with a different desire, he's in exactly the same problem he claims the atheist is in when he says the universe is contingent and could have been otherwise, and therefore cannot explain itself. Hence, even positing a god doesn't allow you to avoid brute facts. There is no way to answer these questions, even in principle, with something logically necessary.

> God, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish; if God exists, he must exist necessarily. Merely saying it is a brute fact does not get around this; it's getting at that the universe is not contingent. Some think that there could be an infinite chain of causes to get us here. Maybe so. But how does this help? The chain is still contingent.

Nope. If god with eternal contingent (non-necessary) desire X exists, there cannot in principle be a logically necessary reason why that god exists, since a god with another non-necessary desire is just as possible. Hence god is just as contingent as the universe, lest you want to resort to special pleading.

>This is more of the New Atheism that is pure sophistry. 'Simple Logic'. Yikes. There are good objections to the PSR; this is obviously not one of them.

Not at all. This is serious logic showing how even you cannot answer the basic questions of why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible? The only possible answer must be contingent, since a necessary one is off the table.

>I am not a Catholic but here is a very sophisticated defense of the PSR. Pruss is a Catholic. Pruss is brilliant here as well.
>
>Timothy O'Connor has my favorite book on the topic here

It is impossible to defend the PSR and all attempts to claim otherwise depend on false arguments from consequence.

The book I always recommend people start out with is Sophie's World, not because it's the most in-depth, but because it's the most accessible for a newcomer. It's also the most entertaining I've read. If you want something more in-depth, Russell's History of Western Philosophy is generally this subreddit's big recommendation, although I personally wouldn't say it's a great starting point. His reading of some thinkers is not great, and he's not quite as good at dumbing down certain ideas to an introductory level.

A good summary of philosophy will help you for a couple reasons. One, it will give you enough information to find out what thinkers and ideas interest you. If you're interested in a particular question or thinker, then that's obviously where you should go. Philosophy of religion? Logic? Aesthetics and art? Language? There's plenty written on all these topics, but it can be a bit overwhelming to try and just attack all of philosophy at once. Like any other field, there will be parts of it that click with you, and parts that don't really seem all that appealing. Find your niche, and pursue it. In addition to giving you an idea of where to go, a good overview will put ideas in context. Understanding Augustine and Aquinas will make more sense if you know that they're working with a foundation of the Greek thought of Plato and Aristotle. Descartes wrote his meditations during the enlightenment, and was a major contributor to much of the emphasis on reason that defined that era. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's existentialist ideas become more powerful when you realize they're critiquing and challenging the technicality of Kant and Hegel. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and while you can't be expected to know all the details of everything, your niche area of interest will make more sense if you understand it's context.

As for easier texts that I'd recommend trying out (once you find an area of interest), here's a few that are pretty important and also fairly accessible. These are texts that are generally read by all philosophy students, due to their importance, but if you're just into this for personal interest, you can pick and choose a bit. Still, these are important works, so they'll be very good to read anyways.

Plato - Apology: not terribly dense, but an accessible text in which Socrates basically defends his pursuing philosophical thought. I'd recommend this as an accessible introduction that will get you to feel like philosophy matters; think of it as pump-up music before a big game.

Plato - The Republic: this is arguably Plato's most important work. In it, he talks about the nature of men, politics, education and art.

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics: a text that deals with leading a life in accordance with virtue. Aristotle's style is a bit dry and technical, but he's also very important.

Augustine - On Free Choice of the Will: a dialogue similar to Plato's in which Augustine argues that the existence of God does not conflict with man having free will.

Aquinas - Selected Excerpts: he wrote a lot, so you don't wanna try reading a whole one of his works. This selects his key ideas and puts them in bite-sized chunks. He's a big Christian thinker, arguing for the existence and goodness of God and related theological concepts.

Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy: Descartes uses reason to prove he exists, along with some other things. Pretty easy to read, although it sparked a revolution in thought, making epistemology a central problem of philosophy.

Kant - Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals: one of his easier works, but it's still one of the more technical works I'm recommending, in which Kant demonstrates that morals are a priori.

Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling: one of my favorite books, Kierkegaard writes about the nature of faith using the story of Abraham and Isaac as his starting point. A huge critic of Kant's obsession with pure reason, he is generally considered to be the first existential thinker.

Nietzsche - Beyond Good & Evil: Nietzsche is one of the more controversial thinkers in history. Also a critic of Kant, he is one of the most profound critics of religion. This book is one of his more important, in which he talks about his problems of religion, the culture around him, and at times points us in the direction he wants us to go. Know that he doesn't write in a terribly direct manner, so if you choose to read him, come here for assistance. He's a bit different to read, and can be challenging if you're not ready.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and having a good reference to help you along will be very helpful.

> How do you have a purpose in life if you don't believe in God?

Why do I need God to have a purpose? Why do I need a purpose?

I find that in life, you must find your own purpose. And that can differ from person to person. I find purpose in three things: Family, Fun, and Impact.

• Family: Spending time with family and friends brings me great joy, and I would do anything for them.
  
  
• Fun: It is a short life, so I do what I can to minimize my own suffering, and do the things I enjoy.
  
  
• Impact: Whether it's through work or charity, I seek to leave an impact on the world and make it a better place.
  
  > What's the point of you being here then?
  
  I could ask a Christian the same thing, and I don't think I would get a clear answer backed up by passages in the Bible. Nobody knows why we're here. You're literally asking for the meaning of life. To which I must reply "42."
  
  > How can you believe in other things or anything, but view God as an abstract or not real?
  
  I only believe in things that I can test. I know you don't want me to say Science, but that's literally the reason. Science involves the practice of being able to repeat something and figuring out what rules it follows. The only things in which I believe are things that I have found from testable evidence. (regardless of if my interpretation is correct)
  
  > She does not want you to answer "science" because she says science cannot explain everything.
  
  But science CAN explain everything. It just hasn't yet.
  
  > She wants an answer that doesn't involve science I guess.
  
  Without science, it is not an answer .
  
  > so her questions might sound a little sheltered to you.
  
  They do. But I was there too. Heck, I was baptized 7 years ago. It was my increased interest in affirming my beliefs that led me to lose them. I ventured out to different church services every week. I visited Catholic churches, Baptist, Methodist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, etc. and began reading about these belief systems. Then I started challenging my beliefs by talking with athesists, and reading books like "The God Delusion," "God Is Not Great," "The Portable Atheist," "Breaking the Spell," and many more.
  
  It was my increased exposure to other religions and the book "A History of God" that led me to my current conclusions. "A History of God" discusses who wrote the books in the bible, why they were written, the political motivation behind them, who compiled the bible, etc. It was then that I realized there is no reason I should believe that these texts are divinely inspired. Especially if the only reason I believe the Bible is Divine and the Quran isn't is because that's how I was raised.
  
  Christians are atheists in terms of thousands of gods. I only go one god further.
  
  How do you compare?
  
  And this may sound rude (I really don't mean it that way) but I would encourage your roommate to take a few important classes. 1. A class on world religions, 2. A class on ethics, and 3. A class on the Scientific Process (Chemistry and Physics would also be a big plus)
  
  > she said a lot of your responses regarding a purpose sounds like, "Moralism".
  
  Forgive me, but this seems like an oversimplification of a grander issue. I would highly encourage you both to do some more study on ethics and moral theory. I suggest starting with something like "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" which goes over most of the primary methods of deducing morality. "Moralism" is kind of a weird umbrella term that doesn't really mean anything. I think you'll find that atheists incorporate a wide variety of these theories to deduce morality on a day-to-day basis. And while most Christians would subscribe to "Divine Command Theory" I think you'll find yourself supplementing using other theories as well. For instance, nothing in the Bible tells you who to choose if you are going to accidentally kill either 2 people or 10 people. You would have to resort to utilitarianism to deduce that you should pick the 2 (or look deeper into the surrounding circumstances and incorporate another theory).
  
  Anywho, I think it's great that your friend is branching out and seeking to understand. It's sometimes hard to respect Christians who stay in their own little bubble their whole life and believe what they were told to believe. So, good on ya mate! And I hope I didn't come across as rude or pretentious in any of this, I was trying my best to describe the things that I didn't understand when I was a believer.

> I want an answer unique to you

Okay!

> What gives you such strong conviction that what you believe is true?

The same reason you said your mother loved you. It feels right and makes the most sense. It could be she doesn't actually exist outside of your mind. (This cannot be proven wrong objectively. You have to believe it without objective evidence.) Or it could be that she has no free will and loves you no more than a robot who was programed to think and act like it loves you loves you. (Again, you cannot objectively prove your mother has any free will to actually love.)

There are more examples I can give but the point is: at the end of the day, you cannot know your mother is an actual person that actually loves you (beyond just determinism forcing her to act and think so like a robot) without exercising some faith in the Heb. 1:1 sense. (You much choose to believe some things that cannot objectively be proven. Like Solipsism is wrong. For you they are "obvious" but same for me.)

With that said, my two reasons are: 1. It makes the most sense intellectually and 2. It feels right (as if I am receiving spiritual assurances.)

First: Let me start out with noting: though most philosophers are atheist, most philosophers of religion are theists. My point is only, the intellectual case for God and religion must be quite strong if those that study it professionally using the methods of the secular academic world emerge theists. If anyone tells you there is no rational basis for God and religion have obviously not studied the issue in any actual depth.

Want some examples? Well you can start with the argument from contingency + principle of sufficient reason. Even atheists have admitted Pruss has made a formidable case with this argument here. Or you can go the The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics and show the universe is more rational and coherent than you have any right to believe assuming random and purposeless. The NY Times have a lay version here. Or there is the observation that evolution optimises on survivability not truth. (And we know the two are different) This would imply, if there is nothing more than brute, random evolution producing brains, there is no reason to think our brains find truth in what is actually true, only in what it takes to survive. Thus, any "rational" conclusion we ever make, we need to be suspicious actually has anything to do with actual truth. (IE... lack of something like God forces you to admit you might be completely irrational pertaining to any and all your beliefs.)

There are more, and said right they are stronger that I presented, but I am writing a book! So will provide more if you ask.

Second: It feels right. I feel the spirit when I pray. (Just like you feel "love" when your mother hugs you. They both may be no more that chemicals fooling you what is actual, but you trust in at least one is real while trust both are.) I feel the spirit when I read the scriptures. I feel the spirit when I keep the commandments. Like Alma 32 says, when I nourish the seeds of the gospel, I see them grow. I see how the gospel blesses myself and my family. I, etc... So, by this second method I also know it.

So, just like you believe your mother is an actual person who actually loves you (something you must believe without objective proof) because it makes the most sense and feels right I likewise believe there is an actual God who actually loves me because it makes the most sense and also very much feels right (the spirit).

> There's been quite a few posts lately about why virtue is actually good. What is the concrete argument in favor of virtue being good?

I have not yet read it, but Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism attempts to formally answer this question.

> and although Stoic principles still function well as a way of living, the moral impetus seems to be lost

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here by the moral impetus being lost.

> Why are we supposed to be virtuous and to follow reason and the like? It is because logos is the first principle of the cosmos

This was my response to /u/anaxarchos:

"I don't see how the claim that virtue is the sole good is dependent on the claim that the universe is providentially ordered. If living virtuously results in the best possible life, and if we want the best possible life, then it makes sense to live virtuously. Or if having the most money resulted in the best possible life, then it would make sense to do whatever it takes to acquire the most money."

(Of course, the claims that either "living virtuously results in the best possible life" or "having the most money results in the best possible life" would still need to be defended. But neither necessarily depends on Providence existing.)

this is exactly what i do. don't know what i believe right now, but i do believe in tithing/some version of the law of consecration. could no longer bring myself to pay tithing to the church, but still wanted to donate to a real charity. GiveDirectly seems like about as good as it gets.

The best part is, I'm on the verge of convincing my amazing TBM spouse to agree with it. She and I read "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer, and it really opened her up to the idea. Really a great book, I'd encourage anyone to read it. Singer's Effective Altruism movement is essentially a secular form of the law of consecration.

Just in case anyone is in a remotely-similar situation, here are the points I made in our conversation after we had both read the book:

• The church only donates $40 mil per year in humanitarian work, which is abysmal for a church that brings in at least $5-7 BIL in tithing
  
  
• The Church has no measurement of the impact of their humanitarian work, it's all outputs (i.e you can't tell how much good your donations actually do)
  
  
• They spend much of their money on malls, for profit businesses, and expensive real estate. We are vegetarians (sometimes vegans, but not always), and she was really sad to learn the church owns one of the largest cattle ranches in the US, as well as for-profit hunting preserves. Why spend our money on things we don't support?
  
  
• They are not transparent in their use of tithing funds, which is contrary to the D&C's "common consent" requirement
  
  
• Singer talks about considering "Room for Growth" when choosing where to donate, i.e. is this charity maxed out with donations, or could they still put them to good use? Even though my TBM wife believes that much of what the church does is helpful, i.e. printing and distributing BoMs, I argued that if they can afford to build mega malls with tithing money, they probably don't need our $ to print more BoMs. Therefore, our money would go farther with GiveDirectly than by donating to the church.

My usual "recipe" for conversations is:

1. start with observational humor on environmental banalities (weather, pop culture, interesting buildings/statues, recent festivals, etc.) and explore basic biographical details (where are you from, have you lived here long, etc.)
   
   
2. eventually pivot to FORD (family, occupation, recreation, dreams), which can easily fill a few dozen hours
   
   2.5) actively listen to your conversation partner in addition to thinking about what to say next, e.g. split your attentions 65/25, respectively. Ask them questions about the stories they tell, but if your question is too much of a digression keep it in mind for later (earlier you mentioned X, I think Y, what do you think of Z?)
   
   2.75) have a bunch of relevant stories of your own in your back pocket that you can retrieve at a moment's notice, but beware one-upmanship; instead, seek to find or build common ground. Helpful to have explored lots of hobbies yourself here
   
   
3. you mentioned grad school -- people usually study stuff they're interested in, so dredge up relevant memories of old articles you've read and questions you had while reading them, and have them clarify tricky concepts for you. If you're not quite right it's just all the more opportunity for them to swoop in and show off, and at least signals your interest in whatever subject they're studying
   
   
4. another poster mentioned lists of questions -- I actually think these can be useful conversational aids! But don't, like, memorize the questions and completely break the flow of conversation asking one. Maybe during a quiet moment when all prior conversation threads have terminated you can pop in with a random "what's your favorite dinosaur" (and why?), but otherwise I've found these best for e.g. long drives together. Also, the linked questions maybe aren't the best -- I'd recommend getting one of these (personal faves have been Greg Stock's books, and I think I've tried most at this point; something like this also works). Each question has usually afforded around half an hour of conversation, though some took us a few hours and some a few minutes. Also, these are great for building a relationship off an existing foundation, which is to say that I've only ever tried the books of questions thing after I'd already talked to the person “organically” for 50-100 hours. But collectively they've probably given me many hundreds, if not thousands of hours of conversation, so I wouldn't be so quick to discount them!
   
   
5. bring it back to local entertainment -- listen to a podcast or audiobook together or watch a movie or documentary and pause to discuss points

I was 34. Yeah, pretty late by /r/atheism standards. ex-hindu.

Had my doubts about certain parts of Hinduism and I was vocal about it too, confronting friends about it. But, I carried out lot of rituals none the less and did believe for the most part. I was god believing Hindu.

When I was 34, I distinctly remember the day I came to the final conclusion that there was no God, not just Hindu but the claims of any of the big religions, Christianity, Islam etc. of existence of God were false. I celebrated that day by eating a Wendy's burger. As a Hindu, I would not have eaten beef. Told wife on the same day. She remains Hindu but respects my decision.

Shaking off some of the remaining superstitions took some time e.g. the rings, chains that I took to be good luck charms. But in about 4-5 months I was free off it all. I use to park in a certain direction. Not any more. Lot more of parking space has opened up for me now. :-) Lot more of life has opened up as well. I couldn't be happier.

I rationalize my actions and try to hold myself to a higher moral standard. Any graduate level ethics course can teach you much more about morality than any of the religions. Thinking that there has been no progress on this front or that religion has monopoly on morality is just not correct any more. This is a pretty good book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4

As /u/FreeHumanity has pointed out below, it makes it easier for us to help you if we know what you're interested in.

However, these are a couple of books on my bookshelf that I find interesting and are mentioned on here quite often:

The Pig that Wants to be Eaten, by Julian Baggin. It's 100 ethics-related thought experiments, laid out in a very easy-to-read way. Amazon link here.

If you're interested in something a little more academic and a little more comprehensive, The History of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell, is one of the best one-volume histories of philosophy around. You have to be a little bit careful with him, though--he tends to put his own ideas about the philosophers into his text :) Again, Amazon link here.

If you would like more specialised help, please do clarify what your interests are so that we can recommend books, youtube clips, or other things that are tailored to your interests :)

Hope that helps :)

There's lots of great stuff on virtue ethics. If you're looking for a developed treatment of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, there's really no other alternative to Rosalind Hursthouse's On Virtue Ethics. She does a great job of taking Aristotle further than he does himself, but trying to keep in the spirit of his ethics. If you're also interested in Aristotle, I'd check out Julia Annas' Intelligent Virtue. Both work to interpret the ideas from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

If you're interested in the Stoics, read Epictetus' Handbook AKA Enchiridion and Cicero's De Finibus. You can google those and find free translations everywhere. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is similarly good. If you're looking for a good contemporary account, as far as I know, Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism is the standard. I'd highly recommend that. Skip over the primer on logic if you don't want it.

For other approaches to virtue ethics, I'd check out Christine Swanton's Virtue Ethics: a Pluralistic View.

I could go on, but if you read these, you'd know more about virtue ethics than most.

I read all of Harris' books - up to a point. I haven't read Waking Up and probably won't.

TEOF was his big smash hit, and has my recommendation.

As a Utilitarian, I initially enjoyed The Moral Landscape, but I (and many more knowledgeable people) don't believe it lives up to its (implied?) claim of showing how morality can be considered like a scientific discipline. TML essentially proposes a kind of Utilitarianism but doesn't make a compelling case for why this (and not, say, deontology or virtue ethics) should be how morality is measured. Let me put it this way: I think Harris is much better at arguing against religion than he is at explaining moral philosophy.

A book that was recommended to me and that I've found much more helpful in understanding ethics is Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics. I'd recommend it over Harris, or as a supplement.

Waking Up? Personally, I resent Harris for distracting and confusing me with his occasional jaunts into the fuzzy, ill-defined, mysterious world of woo that he calls "spirituality." While on one hand fighting against the "magical thinking" that leads people to believe the ridiculous tenets of religion, here he is opening the back door for (what I think is) just another brand of magical thinking. But please note that this is just my personal opinion, and I haven't even read his book!

The last book of his I've read is Free Will, and I think it does an admirable job of explaining the scientific and philosophical underpinnings of this concept.

Finally, just to be an ass, I'd like to recommend the book I consider the most valuable for any (recent?) atheist looking to get his bearings in the world. Richard Carrier's book Sense and Goodness Without God explains, at a college-educated layperson level, why naturalism is perhaps the most sensible way to look at the world, why it offers a compelling alternative to the magical thinking of religions, and how morality and a good life are built up on having a reality-based world view.

No premise of any cosmological argument defended by legitimate philosophers requires that literally everything requires a cause. Rather they say what is contingent has a cause, or what begins to exist has a cause, etc.

The easiest way to justify those principles (usually called 'the principle of causality') is in virtue of PSR. For instance, if something contingent exists (and contingency implies it is not self-explanatory) then if it has no cause, its existence is inexplicable in the sense that nothing intrinsic to it or extrinsic to it accounts for its existence, and therefore has no explanation for its existence. So by modus tollens if PSR is true, the principle of causality is true.

PSR can be motivated by several arguments. For instance, there is the inductive argument, i.e. when we look for explanations, we tend to find them, and even when we don't, we usually suppose there is an unknown explanation rather than literally no explanation whatsoever. There's a related abductive argument, namely that the fact we tend to find explanations is better accounted for on the hypothesis that PSR is true as opposed to PSR being false. These can be considered broadly empirical arguments in the sense that they do not deductively prove PSR yet provide evidence in its favor.

There are also retorsion arguments, referring to arguments that show denying PSR leads to absurdities. For instance, we suppose when we take some claim to be rationally justified, we not only have a reason for accepting the claim (in the sense of a rational justification) but also that this reason is the reason why we accept the claim (in the sense of causing or explaining our acceptance of it). But if PSR is false, we can have no reason for thinking this is the case. For all we know, we believe what we do for literally no reason whatsoever, rather than in virtue of good reasons. And even the fact that it seems we believe what we do in virtue of good reasons could itself be a brute fact, lacking any explanation in terms of the truth of the matter. So if PSR is false, we don't know we believe anything because we possess good reasons for doing so. Yet it seems obvious we do know at least some things in virtue of the possession of good reasons, which commits us to the truth of PSR (unless you're willing to bite the bullet and accept that we know nothing in virtue of reasons, which raises a problem of self-defeat or incoherence, since it's hard to see how such a view could be justified by appealing to reasons).

There are a lot of other arguments you can give for PSR. See in particular Alexander Pruss's book on the subject. But for now that should be sufficient to demonstrate there are at least plausible reasons for holding PSR to be true, which would justify appealing to some version of the principle of causality.

At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.

At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.

Some good intro books:

• The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau
  
• The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James and Stuart Rachels
  
• Ethics: A Very Short Introduction by Simon Blackburn
  
  Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
  
  
• Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotles for Classic Virtue-Ethics. Martha Nussbaum would be a contemporary left-wing Virtue-Ethicist who has used Marx account of alienation to argue for Global Justice.
  
• Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel (or Emmanuel) Kant for Classic Deontology. Kantianism is a popular system to argue for anti-statism I believe even though Kant himself was a classical liberal. Christine Korsgaard would be an example of a contemporary Kantian.
  
• The Methods of Ethics by Henry Sidgwick for Classic Utilitarianism. People usually recommend Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, but most contemporary Ethicists believe his arguments for Utilitarianism suck. 2 other important writers have been R. M. Hare and G. E. Moore with very unique deviations from classic Utilitarianism. A contemporary writer would be Peter Singer. Utilitarianism is sometimes seemingly leading people away from Socialism, but this isn't necessarily the case.
  
• Between Facts and Norms and other works by the contemporary Critical Theorist Jürgen Habermas may be particularly interesting to Neo-Marxists.
  
• A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. I know Rawls is a famous liberal, but his work can still be interpreted to support further left Ideologies. In his later works like Justice as Fairness: A Restatement you can see him tending closer to Democratic Socialism.
  
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche for... Nietzsche's very odd type of Egoism. His ethical work was especially influential to Anarchists such as Max Stirner, Emma Goldman or Murray Bookchin and also Accelerationists like Jean Baudrillard.
  
• In case you think moralism and ethics is just bourgeois propaganda maybe read something on subjectivism like Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J. L. Mackie
  
• Or if you want to hear a strong defense of objective morality read Moral Realism: A Defense by Russ Shafer-Landau orc

I think that if the person reports it was her duty so save other soldiers, it's not really a classical case of altruism. So in that case I agree. But that's unique to the reported reason of someone handling out of "duty" rather than "empathy".

On an act being egoistic as soon as some pleasure is derived, allow me to quote these nicely written paragraphs from this book.

> The egoist might respond: if you are doing what you really want, aren’t
you thereby self-interested? It is important to see that the answer may well
be no. For all we know, some of us deeply want to help other people. When
we manage to offer such help, we are doing what we really want to do. Yet
what we really want to do is to benefit someone else, not ourselves.
Now, if people get what they really want, they may be better off as a
result. (But they might not: think of the anorexic or the drug addict. Or
think of the cases of disappointment discussed in chapter 4.) Yet the fact
that a person gains from her action does not prove that her motives were
egoistic [1]. The person who really wants to help the homeless, and volunteers
at a soup kitchen or shelter, may certainly derive pleasure from her efforts.
But this doesn’t show that pleasure was her aim. Her aim may have been to
help those in need. And because her aim was achieved, she thereby
received pleasure.

> As a general matter, when you discover that your deepest desires have
been satisfied, you often feel quite pleased. But that does not mean that your ultimate aim is to get such pleasure. That’s what needs to be shown; we can’t just assume it in trying to figure out whether our motives are
always self-interested.

I also think describing altruistic behavior as epigenetically, deterministically or evolutionarily is as useful as describing love as an influx of dopamine and oxytocine. It's scientifically nice but also kind of restricting in understanding humans.

[1] If I reward you with a cookie for taking the shortest path to work, and you enjoy that reward, that does not prove you took the shortest path to work because of my reward--you would have taken it anyway and under what I understand to be your conception of human behavior there is no accounting for this possibility.

Adding to that, if you have utilitarian-leaning tendencies, you may want to consider researching effective altruism. In a nutshell, it suggests that when attempting to do good for the world that you should take an evidence-based approach. So rather than donating to a charity because it sounds nice and tugs at your heartstrings, you should figure which (possibly unsexy) organizations are doing the most good. It's very possible for a charity to have a high Charity Navigator rating because its administrative overhead is very low while the actual charity work it does is ineffective.

Relevant organizations/resources:

• A TED Talk by Peter Singer, philosopher and proponent
  
• The Life You Can Save, a book by Peter Singer that readably and compellingly (in my opinion) articulates this approach
  
• GiveWell, a meta-charity that has a lot of information on their approach to giving and does a lot of research on its favorite charities
  
• Centre for Effective Altruism: an Oxford-based organization that aims to promote this philosophy
  
  Of course, you should always give to charities that you like, rather than blindly following what strangers on the internet tell you. But when I give money, I like the idea of trying to maximize worldwide good per dollar.
  
  And I'd also recommend that you research arguments against the practice:
  
  
• One written by a believer as a test of their understanding of the arguments against it
  
• A column by NYT columnist David Brooks
  
• Art is a selfish waste of time, says effective altrusim
  
• An article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review: note, however, that it's very name-cally and hand-wavey
  
• A compare/contrast with a movement called "philanthrolocalism"

Hey! These are good questions and if I am understanding you correctly, they are questions that are very relevant to contemporary analytic philosophy.

Let's first try and clarify the problem: does Aquinas, by endorsing a specific cause and effect theory of causation, endorse determinism about human creatures? Is this compatible with Catholicism? Or even Christian theism for that matter?

I read Aquinas as a compatibilist; he thinks that determinism is compatible with free will. So it seems you are correct in thinking that he finds determinism to be true, but also that free will is real and that it is compatible with the former.

The problem is seen in contemporary philosophy with two premier philosophers in Peter van Inwagen (an Anglican) and Alexander Pruss (Catholic). van Inwagen, so it seems, is a libertarian concerning free will and so is Pruss. There is this idea called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which says that every contingent thing must have a reason, ground, or cause for its existence. But if this is true, like Pruss thinks (he uses it skillfully to defend a contingency argument), how can there be libertarian free will? Doesn't the PSR, if true, rule out all contingency in the world? It seems we cannot say a choice is free if it is not contingent. van Inwagen thinks precisely this case and thinks it is worrisome for the theist and thus he rejects it; Pruss disagrees.

Pruss wrote a fantastic book where he argues that the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) is true.

If you want a fantastic book about free will, God and evil I would recommend these two books: this book by Alvin Plantinga (which I think should be read by every Christian--it's that important) and this book.

You may have to be a little more clear here, because 'fulfillment' can be a rather loaded word. Do you mean something like living a fully satisfied life, or satisfied aspect of life (e.g. emotional satisfaction)? Or do you mean fulfillment of some sort of condition, i.e. a philosophy of attempting to fill needs and wants? They can be slightly different.

I think what you're probably looking for is hedonism, which doesn't necessarily mean what its common connotation would suggest. Hedonism seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure or pain. Certain types of pleasures may have a higher ability to satisfy these needs/wants. For example, Mill discusses in chapter 2 of Utilitarianism explains that some pleasures are of a higher kind than other pleasures. Pleasures that exercise our human faculties (e.g. emotional, intellectual, and aesthetic pleasures) are higher than pleasures that do not (e.g. physical or sexual).

If money can buy you happiness, them presumably one is not choosing money rather than happiness. Instead, one is choosing more happiness over less happiness.

I can't think of any philosopher who has ever argued that it makes more sense to get money than to be happy, except for the ones who have argued that one has a duty to help others as much as possible, which entails earning lots of money and donating it to charity. See here and here for details. Apart from that though, the choice seems pretty easy: happiness, because money is only useful as a means to some other end, whereas happiness is an end in itself.

>I am the first to say that libertarian authors have frequently relied upon controversial philosophical assumptions in deriving their political conclusions. Ayn Rand, for example, thought that capitalism could only be successfully defended by appeal to ethical egoism, the theory according to which the right action for anyone in any circumstance is always the most selfish action. Robert Nozick is widely read as basing his libertarianism on an absolutist conception of individual rights, according to which an individual's property rights and rights to be free from coercion can never be outweighed by any social consequences. Jan Narveson relies on a metaethical theory according to which the correct moral principles are determined by a hypothetical social contract. Because of the controversial nature of these ethical or metaethical theories, most readers find the libertarian arguments based on them easy to reject.

>It is important to observe, then, that I have appealed to nothing so controversial in my own reasoning. In fact, I reject all three of the foundations for libertarianism mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I reject egoism, since I believe that individuals have substantial obligations to take into account the interests of others. I reject ethical absolutism, since I believe an individual's rights may be overridden by sufficiently important needs of others. And I reject all forms of social contract theory, since I believe the social contract is a myth with no moral relevance for us...

~ Huemer from Problem of Political Authority. (The book argues in favor of anarcho-capitalism, but will also give you a strong foundation for minarchism)

His moral philosophy is intuitionism. I also highly suggest his other book Ethical Intuitionism - it's a great intro to metaethics and spurred my interest in philosophy to begin with.

If you can't afford either, he has some chapters over at his faculty page.

It asserts a moral realist position (objective moral facts) on the basis of our intuitions - essentially common sense morality (see: GE Moore, and WD Ross). It is a respectable academic philosophy (as opposed to Objectivism) and has recently seen a resurgence.

Here is a good summary of what Huemer's approach lends itself to

At the outset, please note that this topic is exceedingly slippery. I am convinced that the most efficient way to understand these issues is through the study of philosophy of ethics.

> Where do atheists get their [sense of] morality?

Nature, nurture, and the phenomenological self-model.

> What defines the "good" and "bad" that has
permeated much of human society?

Easy: notice that personal definitions of morality between individuals immersed in the same culture tend to strongly overlap (e.g., most moderns consider rape to be "bad").

From this considerable volume of data, it is fairly simple to construct principles that adequately generalize these working definitions, such as "promote happiness", and "mitigate pain".

> [If you're not caught, why not murder? Why donate to charity? Does might make right?]

These questions appear to have both practical and intuitive solutions.

What are you trying to understand?

> How do atheists tend to reconcile moral relativism?

What do you mean?

> Barring the above deconstructions, how do atheists account for morality?

Moral theories largely attempt to bridge the gap between descriptive facts and normative commands:

• Kant argued that norms are not discovered via our senses, but are simply axiomatic principles.
  
• Rawls argued that norms are the product of a hypothetical agreement in which all ideally rational humans would affirm certain values (Social Contract) if they didn't know their fate in advance (Veil Of Ignorance).
  
• Mill argued that norms are best expressed through the need to increase pleasure and decrease pain.
  
• Parfit argued that these three approaches don't really contradict one another.
  
• Nietzsche argued that norms and artistic tastes are the same.
  
• Mackie argued that norms are human inventions that include social welfare considerations.
  
  

>And I don't pretend that I have anything more than a populist's understanding of these topics. I'm surely just scraping the surface of most topics, misunderstanding things, and I would never think I can be part of an academic conversation because I listen to a couple podcasts.

And I respect you understanding your own ignorance in a topic, because that shows intelligence. Philosophy, interestingly, is the subject that most makes me feel more stupid the more I've studied it, so you're definitely not alone! That being said, many people from the new atheist / "skeptic" community act like this gem

>Yeah, I just say "this is interesting, I'd even like to talk about it with strangers", but I acknowledge the second part of your sentence and am OK realizing my understanding is often limited and quite possibly wrong.


And I think you should use that understanding as motivation to maybe go directly to the sources that these podcasts engage with :) Philosophy is a subject with so many fantastic, but extremely accurate introductory books and I go back to them every now and then to refresh myself on the basics. My favorite example is Prof Simon Blackburn's - Think and another really good piece which goes into a lot of informal logic as well as the jargon: The Philosopher's Toolkit

I find both of those to give an excellent simplification of some of the bigger elements of philosophy without overstretching and misrepresenting their subject matter! :)

"One cannot simply choose whatever one's starting positions are arbitrarily. After all, I cannot simply say "I believe I'm the most important thing in the world, so I can justifiably steal from you or harm you for whatever purpose."

>Well why not?

If your moral theory compels you to accept an ethical proposition such as "I value myself and not others in such a way that I can (for example) permissibly torture you to death for the pleasure I derive from it" then that counts against the plausibility of your ethical theory. It's a huge bullet to bite. I'm not saying you're being inconsistent by adopting such a starting position and following through with it. But consistency isn't the only metric by which we can evaluate moral theories.



>I've not ever seen a good argument that objective, universal values exist. Or that values exist outside of our own choices at all.

I can recommend some well regarded stuff. Enoch's [Taking Morality Seriously](https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Morality-Seriously-Defense-Realism/dp/0199683174) Shafer-Landau's [Moral Realism: a Defense] (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Defence-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199280207/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CNVDTNHGJW3FHXNR8821), Oddie's [Value, Reality and Desire] (https://www.amazon.com/Value-Reality-Desire-Graham-Oddie/dp/0199562385/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496676933&sr=1-1&keywords=Value+reality+and+desire), Huemer's [Ethical Intuitionism] (https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0230573746&pd_rd_r=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ&pd_rd_w=imPRX&pd_rd_wg=uCVqd&psc=1&refRID=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ), Parfit's [On What Matters] (https://www.amazon.com/What-Matters-Three-Derek-Parfit/dp/0198778600/ref=pd_sim_14_19?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198778600&pd_rd_r=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R&pd_rd_w=Gz5f7&pd_rd_wg=Vrfn0&psc=1&refRID=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R)
Wedgwood's [The Nature of Normativity] (https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Normativity-Ralph-Wedgwood/dp/0199568197), Cuneo's [The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism] (https://www.amazon.com/Normative-Web-Argument-Moral-Realism/dp/019958138X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496678105&sr=1-6&keywords=terence+cuneo).


And here's some free papers you can read (too lazy to name them all, sorry):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Boyd5/publication/240034001_How_to_Be_a_Moral_Realist/links/556f6f4308aec226830aab09/How-to-Be-a-Moral-Realist.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/4116101/Why_Im_an_Objectivist_about_Ethics_And_Why_You_Are_Too_

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=433000088031098030104101075089022124028072042008084011092124087113084016108098084005098003032035018116033080110110127020085084106080012039033080068103113067015099089032030091083096096084064089109093065079071016028099008078093021125125068072101086002&EXT=pdf

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=207103102008006126082026003080087077015002001000090086121025066112086090029103080091030096049125038001052020081100031102121000046002046043009065006112075102115099049080048111067091106094117103109111097113120126103124079110093018090122114122112110007&EXT=pdf

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~umer/teaching/intro181/readings/shafer-Landau2005EthicsAsPhilosophyADefenseOfEthicalNonnaturalism.pdf

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1007/s11245-016-9443-7?author_access_token=R2EN7zieClp6VWWEo8DyZPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY6_LyD8T3yNLLNQUBcKQRpfV5lbirZE36eSIc6PLipzIUjIvQrTe9aO4meFw0oJ_Dp784B0R9TnA9qTFaNLe9oWPQUaroxf3o-BsITKWjp_6Q%3D%3D

http://www.owl232.net/5.htm

















>Maybe. But if so then what are these properties?

Moral realists are traditionally divided into two camps on this. Moral Naturalists take moral properties to be natural properties, and Moral Non-Naturalists take moral properties to be sui generis, irreducible, that they cannot be wholly understood in natural terms, that moral properties supervene on the natural. (This is a woefully rough outline: here's a good place to read about the difference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/. And here's an attempt to describe what non-natural moral properties are: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/INP.pdf


>And what is "good" and "bad". I've not seen a definition that doesn't just feel arbitrary.

It has been argued that it is precisely that these things cannot be defined that makes them what they are. See the non-naturalism SEP entry above in the section on Moore's Open Question Argument and this for more responses: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#OpeQueArg

>And even if it's possible to believe in objective values one way or the other - the fact is that no-one's come up with an ethical system that's so convincing everyone agrees.

True, but disagreement about x doesn't necessarily mean right answers are impossible to derive.

>And the objective fact is that at present different people have different values (and good luck trying to get them to change!)

True again, but we can test the reasons why they hold these values.


"But even slaughtering a final generation is better than breeding and slaughtering generations in perpetuity."

>I think that if we're making that decision on animals behalf, without asking them - then that's still domination.

Slaughtering them? Sure is. I'm not saying that's the best solution. Just better than what we're doing now. That's how bad it is now.


>That's the thing I can't see any relation with animals at present that isn't some kind of domination.

That's why some vegans basically want to leave them be. Other vegans will argue having pets is ok, so long as the pet is amenable to being domesticated, like dogs seem to be, and provided we can provide them with a good life. In fact, helping animals like these could be argued as being a good thing.

Other vegans will maintain that some animal use is justified, like medical experimentation. (Not all, but some.) Others will argue that even killing animals for food is justifiable, provided a person does this to survive and be healthy -- or if affordable, healthful alternatives are not readily available to them.

>We all die someday. If had to choose between getting killed at 30 or not existing at all, I'd rather die at 30.

Again, this rather misses the point. The question is, is someone justified to kill you at 30 for whatever purpose, provided they were instrumental in bringing you into existence? It doesn't seem so.

>Equally there's plenty of people who know that they're about to give birth to a child with a life threatening disability, who still choose to make that life anyway. If we don't give farm animals that same choice then we ARE treating animals differently to humans.

In this case, the parents aren't really giving that child a choice. They are making the choice to bring a child into existence. Furthermore, it doesn't seem we have an ethical obligation to bring children into existence. Perhaps it's a permissible option, but it doesn't seem to be a duty. After all, I could have a child and probably provide her a good life. But if I get a vasectomy, that doesn't make me akin to a murderer. Non-existing beings cannot make choices, and they cannot be harmed.




>I don't personally think it's a bad thing to do that. But I do think that it's not possible to come up with a plan for agriculture that doesn't involve humans making decisions on animals behalf - either slaughtering them or placing further restrictions on their freedom than they have already.

Which supports the idea that we shouldn't bring them into existence in the first place.


Edit: fixed a link. And fixed "non-natural terms" to read "natural terms".

> Where can i learn about ethics?

Reading about different ethical philosophies online. Reading books on ethics. Even getting involved in discussions here, /r/askphilosophy, /r/philosophy, /r/smartgiving, etc.

Practical Ethics is the book that has had the biggest impact on the way I reason about ethics. Before that, whereas I saw that reason could help us identify contradictions in our ethical views, I didn't see how any particular ethical philosophy had a solid ground to build its conclusions from beyond coming "from the heart" as you said. This book was the one that gave me hope that we can do better than mostly guessing when picking our starting point.

However, I'm still an ethics noob and there's a lot more for me to read before I can have a very substantiated opinion on what is best.

> How do you KNOW what is right or wrong?

I doubt we can know with 100% certainty. We can't empirically test our meta-ethical beliefs, but we can still apply reason to it, like we do with many other aspects of our life to try to work out the truth.

> Does it really just come "from your heart"?

I assume by this you mean from our intuitions or subconscious? I think that's where most ethical decisions are made from, but it probably shouldn't be entirely from there. The more we learn in general, the more we realize that our intuitions provide rules-of-thumb at best, but can often be wrong. For instance, it seems unintuitive to me that planes can fly, or massive ships can float. So if I really want to know the truth about the world, I don't think I should rely only on my intuitions. Plus, thought experiments like the trolley dilemma show that our ethical intuitions can be contradictory.

> Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted?

No, but I would expect this to be a major factor, just as it is for people's beliefs about anything.

> Have you learned from an institution of higher education?

No.

You might find some inspiration in this David Chalmers' interview. It's a success story of a math whiz who would, late in his education, switch to philosophy.

>It had always seemed my destiny to be a mathematician and for the most part I didn't question it.  I've always loved computers and I suppose the obvious alternative was something in that area....  I did keep thinking about philosophical problems, though mostly for fun on the side rather than as a serious career possibility. 
>
>...I had still hardly read any analytic philosophy.  I had come across a few things in Hofstadter and Dennett's collection The Mind's I -- notably Dennett's "Where am I?", which I loved, Searle's "Minds, Brains, and Programs,” which was interesting and infuriating, and Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” which I found difficult to read but which must have had some influence.  Later on that year I encountered Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons, which I loved and gave me a sense of how powerful analytic philosophy can be when done clearly and accessibly.  I also read Pat Churchland's Neurophilosophy, which gave a nice overview of contemporary philosophy of mind as well as neuroscience, and provided a lot to disagree with.
>
>Around this point I thought that I needed a proper education in philosophy, and I started thinking seriously about switching programs...

You might consider advice from Eric Schwitzgebel regarding MA/PhD:

> Some, including very good, PhD programs will consider non-philosophy majors if they have strong undergraduate records and have background in areas related to philosophy, for example, math, linguistics or psychology. However, even if a PhD program is willing to consider such students, it is often difficult for them to evaluate the student’s philosophical abilities from their undergrad records, letters, etc.

>
>In general, I think it most advisable for students who fall into this first category to consider seriously the MA route.

I think my favourite introductory book was Blackburn's Think, which was just a good all-round explanation of lots of areas of philosophy. Another excellent book was The Philosophy Book which goes through the history of philosophy and explains the (or one of the) 'big idea' of the major philosophers. One really nice thing they do is for each of these they do a flow chart of the philosopher's argument for their view, which I found a really useful thing for understanding. Other very good introductory books are the philosophy-related books in the Very Short Introductions series by OUP, for example they have ones on lots of the big philosophers, as well as on ethics, free will, philosophy of science, existentialism, metaphysics, logic, the meaning of life etc.

For non-book stuff, I highly recommend the Philosophy bites podcast. Basically these are reasonably short (10-20 min) highly accessible interviews with professional philosophers. There have been so many now that there's one for practically any topic you find interesting and they are all very high quality philosophy.

What might also be useful to you are the resources on the Routledge site for the UK Philosophy A-Level (i.e. in the last two years of our equivalent of high school we do 3-5 A-Level qualifications, and one of the ones you can choose from is Philosophy) which Routledge publishes a textbook for. There are lots of pdf documents on there written to help students understand the various topics which are worth looking at. N.B. AS refers to the 1st year of A-Level and A2 to the second year, so the AS resources will be simpler than the A2 ones.

Glad to see an interest in the philosophy of worldview comparison (what I like to call "phil. of religion"). As arguments for the existence of God, moral arguments have made up one of the significant research programs in the field of Natural Theology.

Like the cosmological argument, philosophers refer to a family of arguments intended to establish theologically significant conclusions united under the indicated common theme (in this case, morality) when referring to "the moral argument". There is no single moral argument, it can be said. Appeals to conscience go quite a ways back (John Henry Newman, Kant), but I think you would get a lot out of Robert M. Adam's formulation and defense of various appeals to conscience he makes in addition to his theory of normative ethics which many now take as a clear option outside of the so called "Euthyphro Dillemma".

Here are some lecture notes by Alvin Plantinga which roughly sketch out a few of such arguments a few pages down I won't give any synopsis beyond that because it's a reality far too often ignored that there are many moral arguments which independently argue from moral intuition to various conclusions.

I'll commend you some resources which I think will be helpful in pursuing an informed opinion regarding them:

Proponents:

The Moral Argument, a long essay (combining two shorter essays) explicating two relatively independent arguments appealing to moral intuition by Mark D. Linville. These two essays are some of the best I've read on the subject, the first regarding what he calls The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism wherein he argues for the inconsistency of naturalism and the belief in moral truth, the second dedicated to establishing a theistic foundation for moral truth by refuting all other salient moral theories in contemporary analytic philosophy. Linville has emerged as one of the moral argument's most prominent defenders, and uses much of his essay to attempt to answer its main lines of objection.

J.P. Moreland--whom I mention particularly because his book may be more approachable.

(try not to spend too much time going to apologetics popularizers for your assessment of theistic arguments, though. They can help lay some of the groundwork, but you'll get a lot more out of your study if you work your way up towards the prominent defenders and opponents of theism today.)

The Moral Argument, a shorter essay mainly concerning only one moral argument which infers from moral truth a morally perfect God like that of Western (Christian) Monotheism.

Opponents:

J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism

Antony Flew--really any of his books

Graham Oppy--his latest book Arguing About God's devotes some portion to the moral arguments. He intends to spend more time on this subject in a later publication.

A "neutral"-ish essay

In recent years, the philosophy of religion has become one of the most prolific fields in philosophy. With the arguments and their responses becoming more creative and interesting today, I think you would find these edifying:

In Two Dozen Or So Theistic Arguments: The Plantinga Project, scheduled to come out later this year from Oxford U Press, several independent moral arguments will be developed in detail.

Alexander Pruss (forthcoming Necessary Being), mathematician and analytic philosopher whose work on the cosmological argument has made him one of its most prominent defenders. (see also his book The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Dr. Robert Koon's Epistomological Foundations for the Cosmological Argument)

Graham Oppy is co-authroring a book on the contemporary objections to theistic moral arguments. Being one of the imminent atheist philosophers of religion today, it will definitely be worth the read.

For a completely different perspective, Edward Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God will also come out later this year. I mention him because he represents one of many theistic philosophers who don't find the moral arguments all that important. It's worth noting that the arguments for theism are meant to "stack up"--as is standard practice in science. If a hypothesis can explain 24+ problems, that's significant evidence in its favor, so theist philosophers today tend to defend their arguments as being part of a collective case for theism.

Further resources on arguments for and against the existence of God, as orthodoxly conceived

Also, utilitarianism, ethics of care, and prima facie duties work fine in a materialistic system, and there are even modern versions of virtue ethics and Kantianism that eschew their teleological and numinal parts and can be materialistic. If materialists have a hard time explaining morality that's not an issue particular to materialism, but just a sign that ethics is difficult in it's own right.

Divine command theory and natural law theory also have their difficulties, in addition to the difficulties brought about by the theistic basis. For example, divine command theory has enough of an issue describing how we can know god's commands are moral, and that's not even getting into the general theistic issue of knowing that's we've even received such commands in the first place.

Your teacher sounds like he's making good, difficult to challenge points because he's educated in the subject matter in a way that you, the student, are not. I assure you that there are atheistic philosophers on the other sides of these issues with similarly logical rebuttals. It's just that you're not getting told what these rebuttals are, or who those philosophers are.

Once you know what arguments are being presented I recommend looking them up on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has pretty solid overviews of things beyond the bias of one particular instructor in one particular school.

Atheist philosopher of religion J. L. Makie has a good book on ethics, and I bring him up because the theistic philosophers I know still consider his arguments an issue that needs to be dealt with. Those specifically are the Argument from Relativity, and the Argument from Queerness.

In any case, just expect that really getting into this stuff is going to involve a lot of studying on one's own, and good luck.

As others have said, you've got a solid base. You are definitely prepared to read any of the material. Some other people have recommended reading the third Critique, and while that might help, I definitely don't think it is necessary at all. You will get plenty out of it anyway. Doctrine of Right is Kant's primary political work, but he also has other essays, including "On the Common Saying: That may be Correct in Theory but it is of no use in Practice" and "Perpetual Peace" that are about politics. (All of these are included in the Cambridge edition of Kant's Practical Philosophy. I highly recommend buying this. It is a good deal, and it's the academic standard for Kant work.)

I'd recommend reading the SEP article on Kant's political phil. first just to get a feel for what he's trying to accomplish and what he's drawing on. I'd probably start with the Doctrine of Right after that to get a thorough understanding of his system. But Theory and Practice is more directly related to your interest I think. You'll do fine either way since you have a handle on the first two Critiques and the Groundwork.

I come in from David Friedman's angle: Here's his Amazon review of Huemer's book Ethical Intuitionism:

> Like another reviewer, I started out agreeing with Huemer's basic claim, having concluded some forty-five years ago that the intuitionist position provided the most satisfactory explanation of normative beliefs. I read the book in part in the hope that he could provide better arguments than I had come up with, in particular a better rebuttal of what I view as the most serious challenge to our position. Unfortunately, he doesn't.

> He does do a very good good job of demonstrating that ethical intuitionism is a defensible position and offering arguments to show that most of the alternatives, including ones that are much more widely accepted, are not. But he does not provide an adequate response to the one challenge I am concerned with, the view that combines ethical nihilism with evolutionary psychology.

> The claim of that view is that there are no normative facts, that nothing is good or bad and there is no moral reason to do or not do anything. It explains our moral beliefs, the intuitions that Huemer views (and I view) as imperfect perceptions of normative facts, as explainable by evolution--they were beliefs that increased the reproductive success of those who held them in the environment in which we evolved, and so got hard wired into their descendants.

> That approach challenges intuitionism in two ways. First, it explains the evidence, my ethical intuitions, on the basis of facts of reality I already believe to be true. Once we have one explanation there is no need for another. Second, it raises the question of how, if there are moral facts, we could have acquired the ability to know them, since at least some of them would presumably have led us to modify our behavior in ways that reduced our reproductive success--make us less willing, for instance, to slaughter the men of a neighboring tribe and take their women.

> Despite these problems, I have not yet abandoned my current moral position, in part because the alternative position fails to answer the questions I want answered, indeed implies that they are unanswerable, that there are no actual oughts. In part also, I fail to adopt the nihilist position because I am unable to believe it. That inability is psychological, not logical. I cannot actually believe that there is nothing wrong with torturing small children for the fun of it or murdering large numbers of innocent people, both conclusions that follow from the view that nothing at all is wrong or right.

I differ from Friedman in that I'm not unable to believe that there is nothing wrong with torturing small children for fun--I'm fine with taking the moral nihilist position.

When I use moral language I am talking about my values/preferences.

Still, I think Huemer's moral intuitionism comes very close to what I value and I still think it's useful to have such a system of ethics.

There's a few issues with Peterson's approach to philosophy. The foremost is the extent to which he pretends to be an expert in philosophical issues without actually having well-defended philosophical positions. His pragmatism, for instance, wouldn't pass muster in a graduate class on pragmatism -- and University of Toronto has some leading pragmatist scholars that he could talk to about the subject. This is unfortunately typical of Peterson's approach. His original commentary on Bill C-16 was ignorant and ultimately misled the public. His commentary on dominance hierarchies is also speculative, outside his ken, and misleading.

So while it's great to make philosophy more public there's plenty better people to do it and plenty better ways to do it. Simon Blackburn is a great example of a well-regarded philosopher who offers informed, accurate, work to the public in an accessible way. Dan Dennett is also stand-out example of a great philosopher who does great professional and public work. Or, also from the University of Toronto, there's Joseph Heath, who is now one of Canada's foremost public intellectuals on political and economic subjects.

Contrast that with Peterson's extremely polarizing and error-prone approach. I'd be glad to have fewer Petersons and more Heaths or Nussbaums.

> I would like to create this book, but don't know where to start.

That's alright, largely because such books actually exist. This is one of many such works created by real world thinkers within the philosophical field known as ethics.

Specifically, you are probably interested in material from what Wikipedia deems Normative Ethics, which as the page says are ethical theories dealing with figuring out general rules for defining right and wrong (for both actions and the agent that performs those actions; that is to say, to define what is the right thing to do, and what it means to be a good person). This is about as close to real world guidelines for what good and evil are as you can probably find, so it's probably the best place to start.

Word of warning: philosophy written by actual philosophers can be a touch dry for pleasure reading, so you may want to find and stick to the cliff notes (or equivalent) version when and where you can. That said, I think you'll find the ideas expressed by the history of normative ethics as precisely the sort of ideas you'd like to lift for your own use.

Well, if you want a concentrated course of study you might consider looking for secondary sources that focus on particular areas of research in philosophy rather than trying to read very few (5-10) authors in real depth. I see Kant has been suggested, for example, and while I would never doubt his importance as a philosopher, if you set out with the intention of reading the bulk of his works as you say you might you would have to tackle a great deal of dry, technical material which I think would prove to be a lot more work than you could expect. Same could be said for Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Descartes, nearly anyone you really might care to list. I don't know if you've read much philosophy, but you might instead look at something like an introduction to philosophy, an intro to ethics, or an intro to the philosophy of mind. These are only some examples, there are books like this for pretty much any area of study that attracts your interest. I'm sure others could provide suggestions as well.

/r/ethical_living does have some interesting posts, but I'd also like more resources!

Free bonus: some other possible compassionate choices

• Don't waste, especially don't waste food (Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal by Tristram Stuart)
  
• Be generous (The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty by Peter Singer)
  
• Practise Ahimsa
  
• Donate blood and register for bone marrow and (post mortem) organ donation
  
• Volunteer
  
• Love your enemies
  
• Celebrate July 29th

> In other words, you're contributing to a Christian sub when you are closed-minded to all Christian ideas. Why? To educate all of us dumb Christians?

I don't think you're dumb. I mean some of you definitely are, but that applies equally much to the atheists here as well (although I haven't yet been blitzed with homophobic PMs by one of them).

As to why.

> A great place to start, then, would be to explain why it's objectively wrong to be a "Bigot!" It's something you feel strongly about--and by the way, I happen to agree that real bigotry is wrong--so I'm sure you can explain in a way that won't appeal to the supernatural (since you're an atheist) or the subjective.

If you want me to prove moral realism and an egalitarian ethical theory, you're going to need to give me some time. If you want to skip my sad undergraduate reformularizations of them, see (1) and (2)^(1).

____

^(1. Expecting a single ethical theory to cover all moral situations is to my mind pretty foolish [you need multiple ones for different problems the same way chemistry, physics, and biology all study the natural world but are suited to different environments] but I think this gives the broadest coverage. Which theories are suited to what environments and questions is an important thing to discuss in itself.)

It's certainly more complicated than that. Capitalism is mostly rooted in the [extrinsic motivations] (http://psychology.about.com/od/eindex/f/extrinsic-motivation.htm) of fear and profit. While you could say [what socialism is more about] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691143617) are the [intrinsic motivations] (http://psychology.about.com/od/motivation/f/intrinsic-motivation.htm) like challenge, curiosity, and collaboration. People operate based on both kinds of motivation and a [surprising amount of it is intrinsic] (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc) especially when creativity is called for.

Is the wage laborer doing hard manual labor full-time operating off the profit motive? Of course. Is the scientist, painter, inventor, etc.? Not so much. The inventor may dream of millions, but I bet you curiosity and the challenge lead to that inspiration, and if you just sit around just trying to think how to get rich your ideas won't be that original. What about the millionaire investor picking carefully which companies to fund? Is the investor greedy, evil, and siphoning money out of the economy, or is that investor doing a public service by making sure our resources are pooled in the best place? It's some of both.

Believe whatever you want about human nature, but recognize that it's complicated. Basic income would help the hard-working poor and the starving artist but it'd also prop up the unmotivated. It seems most people here on this subreddit though have faith in humanity and want to move away from the profit motivate running so much of the world.

>How the fuck did you you come to this conclusion

I studied ethics. If you are interested, here is a good overview: https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Theory-Anthology-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0470671602

>Corporations create certainty that life and wellbeinbg are secondary to profit

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

>Government" is a fleeting term that responds to its environment

Sure, but in all cases, what I said is still true.

>In a democracy, if people believe it's worth it, the government will enact it, and propaganda is all that is required to make people believe

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

>Thanks for shitting on sincere public discourse

Cheers

>Edit: Sorry, that was unnecessarily aggressive.

ok! thanks for the note, have a good day.

This book, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, is a very easy read. Others can vouch for its readability (I know /u/TychoCelchuuu has mentioned this book in the past) alongside me, but in regards to me recommending something like this to you: I've been a native speaker for all my life so I may not be the best in determining how well a non-native reader can understand a foreign text. Hope someone can come along to recommend you some reading from a place of similar experience, good luck!

So, there are several things you could mean by "an objective moral standard exists." I'll assume that you're talking about moral cognitivism, which is the view that ethical propositions, like "Rape is bad," are capable of being either true or false.

How this "works" is a difficult and subtle question. It's not immediately obvious how there could be truth in a realm like ethics. Perhaps this is because most people (and most philosophers) are walking around with an implicit Correspondence theory of truth in the back of their minds. The correspondence theory claims that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to the world - and this requires some feature of the world to which "rape is bad" can correspond. But that seems incompatible with the picture of the world that we get from the natural sciences. They tell us about muons and bosons - but there's no talk of "morons" (or moral particles). The world doesn't seem to have "to-be-doneness" built into it (as Mackie says).

So, then, why not just throw in the towel and say that, since there's no reality to which our ethical propositions can correspond, there's no ethical truth? Well, there are a couple reasons.

First and foremost, you might be a hell of a lot more confident in the truth of the proposition "Rape is bad" and the falsity of the proposition "genocide is noble" than you are in the correspondence theory of truth. If so, better to reconsider what exactly truth consists in than to lose the ability to say that the person who claims "genocide is noble" has spoken falsely.

Secondly, naive correspondence truth and a naturalistic world-view is going to destroy far more than ethical truth and falsity once you get it going. It's going to run roughshod over mathematical truth and falsity (surely there aren't mathematical entities out in the world according to our best scientific theories) - it's going to leave you without any way to say that "If I drop out of school, my job prospects will be dim" is true, while "If I drop out of school, the sky will rain money" is false (because I don't actually drop out of school, so there's no part of the actual world to which the "if"-clause can correspond). Also, you won't be able to say that it's true that "I could have been an economics major" (because there's no feature of the world which is my possibly being an economics major). You also won't be able to say that it's false that "I could have been a phrenology major."

So, there's good reason to think that the intuitive reason for thinking that there isn't ethical truth (or, the one that I've always found intuitive) has got to have gone wrong somewhere along the line.

If you're asking me how to fix things, that's the subject of a dissertation or a book. One new and exciting proposal is constructivism about reasons, which has been spear-headed by Sharon Street, and which you can read about here and here.

hmmm, it depends, do you have any background in philosophy? If so I would recommend some more academic theological work like Kathryn Tanner, Leonardo Boff, Borden Bowne, Edgar Brightman, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Karl Barth, etc... if not I would recommend a book like this to help you understand the philosophical framework most theologians use.

As for Biblical studies, Michael Coogan has a really good intro to the Hebrew Bible and Mark Powell has a great intro to the New Testament you can supplement those readings with work focused on the historical context like Richard Horsely's work Jesus and Empire I haven't found a good book that offers a comprehensive overview of the context of the Hebrew Bible, mostly because that covers a large span of history. From there you can go on to read people like E.P. Sanders, William Herzog, Richard Bauckham, Jon Levenson, John Collins, Adela Collins, Carol Meyers, etc.

There is a ton of great academic work out there, unfortunately many seem to shy away from it because its 1) intimidating or 2) challenges embedded theological assumptions or 3) they buy into the myth that learning about theology and biblical studies only causes people to lose faith.

> [The universe is doomed to heat death.]

That doesn't mean our decisions don't matter in the here and now. Yes, all life will one day be gone. But does that mean it isn't really wrong in the here and now to exterminate Jews, torture innocent people for fun, and rape children? Obviously not. The journey matters, even if the destination cannot be changed. Some journeys can be better than others.

> [Evolution can explain our moral inclinations.]

It can explain our eyesight, our hearing, our ability to apprehend logical truths, etc. too. But we don't reject those as being irrational or unjustified. There is a moral theory which holds that our ethical intuitions are a function of reason, and that we can apprehend some moral truths like we apprehend some mathematical truths and logical truths. This seems compatible with the theory of evolution. We don't doubt the appearance our senses or cognitive faculties give us just because they are produced by evolution. Why treat moral appearances differently?

Relevant philosophy article: Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism, and Moral Knowledge, by Russ Shafer-Landau.

> [However, one must take into account that the definition of morality changes from a society to another...]

I don't think it is the definition of morality that is changing so much is people's evaluative beliefs about what is or isn't moral is changing. But our non-evaluative beliefs change throughout cultures and across time too. Non-evaluative disagreements don't suggest that there is no objective answer to be had, or that the subject of disagreement shouldn't be believed in. Why think evaluative disagreements are any different?

Furthermore, there are positive reasons to believe in moral realism. I would suggest Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism. The gist is that we are justified in believing things are the way they appear (unless and until countervailing reasons are presented to think otherwise), and that moral realism appears to be true, justifying our beliefs in it until good reasons are offered to think otherwise. Here is something I posted in another thread on the matter:

> Phenomenal Conservatism is an epistemological view which says we are prima facie justified in believing things are the way they appear, unless we have stronger reasons to doubt that appearance. For example, it seems like there is a computer in front of me, so I'm justified in believing it is in front of me. For another, it seems like the arch at my apartment complex is taller than it is wide, so I'm justified in believing that is the case. However, I take out a measuring tape and measure the arch -- it turns to be wider than it was tall. Now I'm justified in rejecting my previous belief, and adopting the newer, presumably stronger, one. A third and final example: it seems like we can make inferences from two propositions to a conclusion. We see this not with our eyes, like the previous examples, but with our intellect, or reason.

> We have a range of moral appearances available to us. Some moral claims appear to be true, intuitively, in a similar manner as the appearance that we can make inferences from propositions. For example, "Torturing innocent people purely for fun is wrong" appears to be true. I think we see this with our intellect, our reason. I also think, in accordance with Phenomenal Conservatism, I have a prima facie justification for thinking this moral appearance is true. Therefore, the burden is now on the moral anti-realist to cast doubt on these moral appearances by offering a rebutting or undercutting defeaters for moral realism or my accounts of it. I haven't heard good anti-realist arguments yet, so I'm still a moral realist.

He explains these ideas with much more nuance in his book, and he handles lots of objections as well. (There are PDFs floating around online if you don't want to buy the book on the word of a stranger on the internet...)

It depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want a clear, intro-level overview of the subject, check out Shafer-Landau's Fundamental's of Ethics. It's a fantastic place to start, and it is the book I recommend if you really want to understand the subject and plan to read outside the context of a class.

If you want primary texts, I suggest that you get the book's companion, The Ethical Life.

If you want a textbook that is a little shorter and more engaging, check out Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy.

If you want an introduction that's informative and fun to read but less informative than the Rachels or the Shafer-Landau, check out Sandel's Justice. You can also watch his Justice lectures online. This book, as opposed to the other two, is written for a popular audience.

Readings on Metaethics

• Beginners Book (Normative ethics, not metaethics): Russ Shafer-Landau The Fundamentals of Ethics
  
• Short article overview of metaethics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/
  
• Short article on moral realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
  
• Short article on anti-realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
  
• Metaethics overview book: Andrew Fisher's Metaethics: An Introduction. 2011.
  
• Metaethics in depth book: Mark van Roojen's Metaethics: A Contemporary Introduction. 2015
  
• Metaethics Youtube Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBE50_tfAIA&list=PLXKKIUdnOESH7mWijTiv4tTFAcQnEkFDJ
  
• More recommendations on the philosophy reddit
  
  Defenses of God/Christianity
  
  
• William Lane Craig is essentially the Christian counterpart to Sam Harris. If you haven't heard of the cosmological argument, fine tuning, etc he's a good place to start. Not a great destination though if you're looking for something in depth and I don't think some of his arguments work in the end.
  
• Alvin Plantinga is a philosopher known for his contributions to modality, and is also a Christian. He's written some books on his faith, including "Warranted Christian Belief". He's basically the Christian counterpart to Daniel Dennent.
  
• David Bentley Hart is what I would consider the Christian counterpart to Nietzsche. His book "Beauty of the Infinite" is written in a similar style and has a long discussion of the will to power. That book is pretty dense though. An easier starting point is "The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss". Which attempts to disentangle an informed view of God from the somewhat corrupted popular conception of it. He has also written a response to the new atheists called "Atheist Delusions"
  
• Edward Feser is probably my favorite on this list. He's written good intros to the Philosophy of Mind and to Aquinas. He defends the existence of God in "Five Proofs of the Existence of God". His magnum opus, however, is probably "Aristotle's Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science". This book is a (dense) defense of Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics, which is central to his defense of the existence of God. He has also written an intro to Scholastic Metaphysics, and a response to the new atheists called "The Last Superstition"
  
  Many of the people listed above have done interviews and talks if you're not inclined to read an entire book.
  
  Let me know if this does/doesn't help or if I should narrow the list.

Not a website but, depending on what you mean by 'cultural', you may be interested to read Brilliant Orange by David Winner.

It draws connections between Dutch culture (including visual art, architecture, and urban planning) and the football philosophy that developed in the Netherlands in the second half of the 20th century. It's not an academic piece, and there's lots of football anecdotes in case it sounds too dry or academic. It really is a wonderful book: ambitious in scope, but accessible. Can't recommend it highly enough.

Fechner is known as one of the most positive writers of all time. He wrote a book called The little book of life after death which explains why people shouldn't fear death even in a more materialistic light. Since what we should be looking at isn't total preservation of distinct bodily identity, but like parfit says, continuation from it in the right way. And so there's reason to think that this is preserved. Its hard to describe exactly, but it involves a global perspective, where individual people are like the thoughts of the world. And are like waves in the ocean. Individual identity is lost on death, but their data is preserved in the world at large.

Even though he is not super well known, his writings about this became inspirations for both process theism, and the pantheistic writings of the fathers of quantum mechanics, and likewise through them, the modern philosophical discussion on open individualism. So to provide more context for where his ideas go, one would want to also read some of those, and parfit. Maybe schopenauer also, since he is contrasted with fechner sometimes as someone who thinks something similar, but was super depressed instead of positive.

https://www.amazon.com/little-book-life-after-death-ebook/dp/B00N52L19Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454362314&sr=8-1&keywords=fechner+life+death#nav-subnav

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918024307?keywords=schrodinger&qid=1450233393&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Relativity-Social-Conception-Lectures/dp/0300028806/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443776539&sr=1-5&keywords=Charles+Hartshorne

https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472760071&sr=8-1&keywords=reasons+and+persons

https://www.amazon.com/Am-You-Metaphysical-Foundations-Synthese/dp/1402029993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454939417&sr=8-1&keywords=I+Am+You%3A+The+Metaphysical+Foundations+for+Global+Ethics

https://www.amazon.com/World-As-Will-Representation-7th/dp/1491025026/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472760223&sr=1-3&keywords=the+world+as+will+and+representation

Mind you, schrodinger's book refuses to talk about the science of what he's getting at, since he was worried at the time that people wouldn't take their new science as seriously if he related them together. So through the lens of modern understanding, learning about some of that helps explain why him and the other founders of qm followed in this same vein.

But yeah. You don't need to read anything else, but fechner's own book to get an idea. Its short and to the point. And written a little poetically, to make it easier to follow. The later books of course provide better argumentation and context for the idea, but they're not really necessary to understand it. Though part of fechner's own book gets a little too poetic at times, so you're not sure whether he means something in a metaphorical or literal sense. Meaning a modern lens is needed to ensure its following the latest understandings. Which some of the other writers provide. But even so.

> I would really like to start reading some real philosophy, but find a lot of philosophical jargon to be very confusing (For example, I still don't exactly understand what a priori is supposed to mean)

You might benefit from spending some time with a philosophical dictionary. These are books that list a bunch of philosophical terms, with each of them given a definition and a few paragraphs or pages of explanation by a philosopher who specializes in that field. So, for example, the entry on "a priori" would be written by an epistemologist who has published on a priori knowledge.

> I was wondering if there was like an "Ethics for Dummies" out there.

Yes, there are a bunch of books like that.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=introduction+to+ethics

Here's one that has a good reputation:

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1493839865&sr=8-7&keywords=introduction+to+ethics

Personally I skipped around quite a bit, because some books cover certain topics better than others. However this particular book is pretty short and sweet, but gives you a great solid intro tot he topic (which I find absolutely fascinating).

Edit: I really think you should read the intro, which is available to view. It's very engaging.

This is subjective, but in the moral philosophy course I'm taking right now we are currently covering what is called ethical intuitionism, and W.D. Ross and Michael Huemer (perhaps even Huemer more so than Shafer-Landau and Audi) can be considered some of the best here due to their innovative expositions. Ross is usually taught in intro classes, and Huemer even wrote a book called Ethical Intuitionism.

Referring to them as "Friend 1", "Friend 2", and so on seems a bit dehumanizing/clinical, no?

I any case, I think lists of questions are great under the right circumstances -- I've made ample use of them on long road trips and hiking trips on occasion, and they've provided a springboard for plenty of 10-15 hour long conversations. I think one issue with the ones you're using is that a lot of them are really boring and don't really provide fertile ground for followup discussion. I've probably most enjoyed going through Greg Stock's books (e.g. 1, 2, 3, which you can pick up used for a few bucks each), as well as the "If..." series and books of thought experiments. Each question usually provides 5-120 minutes of conversation, with median time being, I dunno, 15ish minutes.

And I'll second recommendations on getting out and doing other things while conversing with people in person. It doesn't have to be too active -- a walk will do.

If someone is looking to actually buy the text, I might suggest: The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant- Pratical Philosophy.

For $20 more you get Mary Gregor translations for all of,

1. Review of Schulz's Attempt at an Introduction to a Doctrine of Morals for all Human Beings Regardless of Different Religions (1783)
   
2. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784)
   
3. On the wrongfulness of unauthorized publication of books (1785)
   
4. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
   
5. Kraus' Review of Ulrich's Eleutheriology (1788)
   
6. Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
   
7. On the common saying: that may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice (1793)
   
8. Toward Perpetual Peace (1795)
   
9. The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)
   
10. On a Supposed Right to Lie From Philanthropy (1797).
    
    Unfortunately you would be loosing the specific introduction by Korsgaard, and gain a more general one by Allen Wood. Both are excellent scholars, but I've heard Korsgaard's introduction can be very helpful to someone first reading Groundwork. So there is that to consider.

So I just finished reading Peter Singer's The Most Good You Can Do and he talks a lot about the ethics of working for an unethical business. The basic conclusion is that if you don't do the work there, somebody else will, and the person who is replacing your position there won't use their money in such an ethical way as you. So just take the job and use the money from your wages to support charities and ethical businesses.

Also, he kinda jokingly discusses the idea that technically you should do your job as poorly as you possibly can without getting fired, so you are less help to this unethical business than the person they would hire to replace you.

I just finished reading this book.

And I'm 100 pages into this book.

The first says:

> Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason - to do what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Moral Philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. There is no simple definition of morality. But there is a “minimum conception” of morality - a core that any moral theory should accept. What do we know about the nature of Morality?

>1. Moral Judgments must be backed by good reasons.

>2. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests.

The second book compares morality to art. While all art is subjective, people still practice and study art and become knowledgeable. It would be foolish to think we couldn't learn something from those who devote much time and energy to the subject. In the same way, we can learn about morality.

For those new to philosophy, I'd recommend The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher, as well as Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar. I'm not all the way through the second one but it seems interesting. These are fairly simple but interesting introductory books that teach you some of the issues philosophers deal with.

Hope this helps!

> Not beyond philosophy of science and picking up the occasional book (Singer, Nieztche, some Eastern oriented stuff) and a decent amount of political philosophy.

Ah, OK. You should maybe consider reading Think, an introduction to philosophy by Simon Blackburn. It's a good read, but more importantly, it's short and accessible.
If you want something more focused on ethics, I suggest Blackburn again with Being Good. Also short and accessible.

> The claim that 2 + 2 = 4 seems much more concrete than the claim that 'killing is bad.'

I would agree ("2 + 2 = 4" is a priori, the other is most likely a posteriori), but I am not arguing that killing is bad, I was just demonstrating that something relatively uncontroversial, like "killing is wrong", cannot be applied in a world where ethics is just subjective.

> Can one choose to just not care about right/wrong?

Sure - what one does is separate from the discussion of theory. One could believe 2 + 2 = 60 even! :D

> instead choosing to focus on the result of such behavior and how it ultimately harms oneself.

Sounds a lot like utilitarianism :-) You should read up on ethical theory - I think you would enjoy it.

Although I can't think of any free articles or videos off the top of my head, this is a nice, short book that covers a lot of what you have questions about. Cohen is an amazingly clear writer, and while it is certainly not comprehensive, it will give you a good overview of the issues, and some further places to start looking for these answers.

There are many threads similar to this one, you might want to search for them in addition to what people are willing to post in this thread:

For a first intake of libertarian socialism:

"Basic Bakunin" by the UK Anarchist Federation

If you are interested in marxian tendencies of libertarian socialism:

"Theory and practice: an introduction to Marxian theory" by Root and Branch

To get more into moderate forms of socialism, where you seem to be at the moment if I look at your flair, read this:

"Why not Socialism?" by G.A. Cohen

or this:

"Why Marx was right" by Terry Eagleton

You might also be interested in one of the absolute classics of marxism:

"The Communist Manifesto" by Marx/Engels

You can find it online here

For a more "in depth" look at libertarian socialism, you can also look at Kropotkins main work:

"The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin

also available online on libcom

If you want a quick way to understand the revolutionary history of early 20th century Europe, you can also listen to this lecture series by left communist Lauren Goldner:

Goldner on: German Revolution, Luxemburg and Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky

Or you might be interested in socialist fiction to immerse yourself in the utopian ideas fleshed out by past and present comrades:

50 SciFi and Fantasy works every Socialist should read

To get a first impression of up-to-date marxian enonomic analysis of todays society, you can always listen to "Economic update" by Richard D. Wolff.

To further your understanding of socialism, you should also take a look at socialist feminism, maybe with this work (one click hoster!):

Liese Vogel: Marxism and the Oppression of Women /attention: new book hosted on a one click hoster ;)

To get further reading ideas and recs regarding problems like imperialism, fascism, biologism, critical psychology, materialist history etc. etc., you may want to check the Revolutionary Reading Guide

Knock yourself out, comrade!

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Russians-History-Geoffrey-Hosking/dp/0674011147

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861749&sr=1-2

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861920&sr=1-1

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

http://www.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300862132&sr=1-1

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

> So most an-caps would agree that the societies would be run with natural rights as the rule of the land, how though does one prove that humans even have rights?

Not all an-caps derive their beliefs from natural rights, and there are different understandings of the term 'natural rights.' In any case, here are what I think are some good resources:

• [Ethical Intuitionism][1]
  
• [The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey][2]
  
• A Positive Account of Property Rights
  
  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746
  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650
  

For metaethics, Andrew Fisher has what I've heard is a good introduction, and Alexander Miller has a more advanced introduction that I like.

For political philosophy, Ian Shapiro's The Moral Foundations of Politics is a great introductory lecture series, and he has an introductory textbook based on the lecture series.

For anthologies, I'd recommend Ethical Theory for normative ethics, Moral Discourse and Practice for metaethics, and What's Wrong? for applied ethics.

Peter Singer's arguments concerning extreme poverty convinced me to donate a portion of my income to highly effective charities a long time ago, long before I started pursuing FI. And while I view FIRE as a goal worth striving for, I view donating to charity as a moral imperative. That's my reason for continuing to donate to charity. It's just more important to me.

If you'd like to learn more, check out this TED Talk by William MacAskill.

Yeah. My ethics doesn't exclude eating meat now, but if lab meat becomes a thing I will absolutely support that to eliminate the ethical grey all together. By chance, have you read The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten?

Ah good. But you've got an MA, no? Whereas both mine are undergrad and in subjects I don't care about (study science, they said. Commit crimes against the lower mammals. Study law, they said. Hang out with lawyers. Become a lawyer, do paperwork. What a dumbass.)

Yeah, I've got R&P. I just ordered The Groundwork earlier tonight. I ordered Practical Ethics yesterday, actually as well, I thought that was supposed to be the Singer? I'll get the other two when I get paid.

Also have you read Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism? Someone told me it was the best defence of moral realism of recent times.

Have you read any of Peter Singer's books? He's a utilitarian philosopher who doesn't just stick to atheism, but covers all sorts of very challenging ground including abortion, euthanasia, animal rights and so on. I don't agree with every position he takes, but he's the best introduction to those squirming issues that I've ever found.

If you're interested, start with Practical Ethics. It's the one university Ethics papers use as an introductory text.

There have been many threads asking the same question; you should search or you haven't searched well. Anyway, I popular recommendation in another post was Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Blackburn. I downloaded it and it's pretty lay (compared to the Kant and Nietzsche I tried to read xD), but still pretty interesting.

I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.

If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:

• Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, often published together under the title The Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates is so important that we lump together all Greek philosophers before him as "the Presocratics," and this cycle of dialogues is a great window on who he was and what he is famous for.
  
• The Basic Works of Aristotle. "The philosopher of common sense" is not a particularly easy read. Cicero compared his writing style to "a flowing river of gold," but all the works he prepared for publication are gone, and what we have is an unauthorised collection of lecture notes written in a terse, cramped style that admits of multiple interpretations. Even so, one can find in Aristotle a very attractive system of metaphysics and ethics which played a major role in the history of philosophy, and holds up well even today.
  
• René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy, not so much because modern philosophers have widely followed his particular positions (they haven't) but because he set the agenda, in a way, with his introduction of methodological scepticism.
  
• David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I think Elizabeth Anscombe had it right in judging Hume a "mere brilliant sophist", in that his arguments are ultimately flawed, but there is great insight to be derived from teasing out why they are wrong.
  
• If I can cheat just a little more, I will lump together three short, important treatises on ethics: Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy".

I assume it is The Damned United which the movie was based on?

You might also enjoy Walking on Water, Clough The Autobiography and I personally look forward to this, Nobody Ever Says Thank You.

> Any suggestions of other soccer related books is appreciated as well.

Would highly recommend Fever Pitch, Miracle of Castel di Sangro, Inverting the Pyramid, Brilliant Orange and Behind the Curtains.

I personally wouldn’t recommend Kaufman’s book on Nietzsche. I find his reading of Nietzsche too sanitized.

As for what you should read—well, that really depends on what you’re interested in with respects to Nietzsche. I find him most compelling as an ethicist, and I think that Brian Leiter’s book is an excellent entry into the secondary literature on that topic. Nietzsche’s critique of the thing-in-itself/noumenal reality and how that relates to ideas of truth is another popular topic; Maudemarie Clark’s book is an excellent starting point there.

Nietzsche is a highly unsystematic thinker, and this can often make him difficult in the beginning. (Although he’s always a joy to read. His rhetorical abilities are delightful!) I would certainly recommend using some secondary literature to get grounded, but do give his writings more of a chance—particularly his later writings: Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morality, Twilight of the Idols.

Do you have a specific interest? Otherwise a general introduction like Think, Problems of Philosophy, or Justice are all well regarded. Though, all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are tons of accessible introductions though and depending on your interests it might be better to use one rather than another. All of those are fairly general

If someone is advocating for metacharities like Givewell, they have probably heard of effective altruism.

Although, if you haven't, I recommend Peter Singer's book The Most Good You Can Do. Its a pretty light read and is very approachable.

Concerning Nietzsche versus Peterson: Nietzsche is an anti-realist about value [see Brian Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, 2nd Ed, section on metaethics, anti-realism about value, pages 119-121], whereas Peterson is a value realist who believes that “transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being.” This is a direct quote from Peterson's Patreon. In contrast, Leiter writes that "Nietzsche’s central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don’t figure in the “best explanation” of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be “explained away” [p 120, ibid].

The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher is a fantastic book for a beginning philosopher. It explores some really deep topics in a very accessible way. Even if you don't understand all the explanations, the stories will really make you think (and you can mess with your friends by asking them what they would do). Good luck!

Sounds like a decent start. If you haven't already read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, I strongly encourage you to pick up a copy. Based on the road you've set for yourself, I think you would really, really like to hear the philosophy of a guy who's spent his entire life thinking about this.

NukeThePope often suggests this book:

https://nukeexcathedra.jottit.com/2011-03-09%3A_book_review%3A_sense_%26_goodness_without_god

Not exactly 'how to be successful' but it is about morality

some other suggestions:

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211?tag=dudugo-20

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1315260344&sr=8-2


http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469

(not about morality, but it will help you to avoid being gullible, which would help with the success thing)

CGP Grey mentions the teleport thought experiment in this episode.

If you enjoy those sort of discussions I very highly recommend the pig that wants to be eaten

A fantastic collection of similar thought provoking excerpts from novels. You might recognize the title from the Hitchhiker's Guide series.

This is easily my favourite question from this sub - "surely we are all too lazy?" In fact I don't have any meaningful comeback to you. I think you're largely right at the moment thanks to general inertia of the population. It's harder going against the norm than it is to go with it.

So let's put your question aside and I want to write to you personally. For me, the path to veganism involved being an addict, being 60kgs (120lbs) overweight, being in chronic pain, being chronically depressed and anxious. I didn't become vegan specifically to stop those things (except to help me lose weight), they were just part of my partying lifestyle for 30 years. In fact, the catalyst for me was one day telling my friend that if I had any self control I would be vegan. I was explaining to her about bobby calves after she asked. I was not even a vegetarian. I realised after then that the story of my life was one in which I had no self control. I literally didn't even want to do my basic self-care (washing, eating properly) every day. I realised that my work was based around reducing suffering for poor people, but my personal life was entirely concerned about increasing suffering to myself. That really ate away at me. I realised that knowing about and agreeing with the ethical aspects of veganism but not being a vegan was just another element of not having any self-control. Once I decided to become vegan, it really helped me with the other issues I had because it's something that can keep me steady despite myself. Like an anchor - I can float away to some extent but it will always keep me from harming myself too much. I realised that veganism was actually the easiest thing to manage compared to all the other shit I had created for myself. But luckily the healthy eating aspect that I choose to follow has helped me with most of my problems. I am still working on my addictive personality, but my addictions are far less destructive now.

The other thing I want to tell you is that we all have cognitive dissonance about our lifestyles but that shouldn't stop us from making some good steps towards positive change. I mentioned above that I work to reduce suffering. I have always donated a substantial amount of money to charity and am a researcher working specifically to improve poverty around the world. I'm also a gamer btw. Noone in their right mind would ever call me a monk. As I mentioned I have lived this lifestyle for a lot longer before I became vegan. So you don't have to be an extremist in order to live a decent life.

The way I see it is that I am always going to make some bad choices but the main elements of my life are anchors that mean that when I do have trouble with decisions, I know I'm not far off where I need to be. This has been helpful for me for a long time.

If you want to figure out how to walk a more ethical path when making decisions about charity, I really recommend reading The Life You Can Save. If you want to just shoot the breeze with me about poor life choices, feel free to PM me.

This is the book "Brilliant Orange" I was referring to. For anyone with an interest in Dutch football, I'd suggest giving it a read. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106

Brilliant Orange by the famous Dutch team of the 70s. Haven't read it but it's really popular among the football community. I know I'll read it first chance I get.

Hey me too :) But Biochem. Which UC (if you don't mind my asking)?

Let's see, what to read... How about this? Or personally I recommend The Mind's I by Dennet and Hofstadter or Godel, Escher and Bach by Hofstadter. They are really good philosophy/science/intelligence books, and are largely well-formed and thoughtful arguments on various philosophical questions.

Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football and Those Feet: A Sensual History of English Football by David Winner were both very well-written and enjoyable reads.

I personally didn't care very much for Franklin Foer's How Football Explains The World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, just found it to be a bit glib in its characterization of the game in different parts of the world, and somewhat reductive in its treatment of specific clubs and their supporters.

Also, I haven't read Soccernomics myself, but have heard/read many rave reviews so that's probably a good bet as many ITT have already mentioned it.

You should check out a book by Peter Singer called The Life You Can Save. He goes into some detail addressing your point that "You can be an ethical person by simply doing things that aren't unethical."

For example, say you were walking in a park next to a lake. You see a young child drowning in the lake and you are the only one who can do anything about it. Do you have a positive obligation to save that child? By your logic, as long as you did not actively push the child into the lake, you are in the clear morally. But I think in a direct example like this, you would agree that you do in fact have a positive obligation to help.

That is the moral obligation to give to charity, but because the starving child is not in front of us we don't feel like we are on the hook.

The go-to text on this whole idea is Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons, a book-long analysis of the ethical implications of this line of thought. It is both brilliant and disturbing, and his analysis ends with a problem he calls the "Repugnant Conclusion," a feature of his utilitarian calculus that I leave to the reader to discover and delight (or despair) in.

Representative selection:

> There are two kinds of sameness, or identity. I and my Replica are qualitatively identical, or exactly alike. But we may not be numerically identical, or one and the same person. Similarly, two white billiard balls are not numerically identical but may be qualitatively identical. If I paint one of these balls red, it will cease to be qualitatively identical with itself as it was. But the red ball that I later see and the white ball that I painted red are numerically identical. They are one and the same ball.
>
> Though our chief concern is our numerical identity, psychological changes matter. Indeed, on one view, certain kinds of qualitative change destroy numerical identity. If certain things happen to me, the truth might not be that I become a very different person. The truth might be that I cease to exist — that the resulting person is someone else.

The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau. Note it's a two volume edition in which one book is the theory with exercises and the other is an anthology of excerpts from ethical texts. https://www.amazon.ca/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233

Hands down best intro to ethics I ever had.

Ok. I haven't read his most recent books:

2015: about effective altruism

2014 coauthored: The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics

I'll look into the 2014 one.

Edit: Here's a quote from the blurb.

> The authors also explore, and in most cases support, Sidgwick's views on many other key questions in ethics: how to justify an ethical theory, the significance of an evolutionary explanation of our moral judgments, the choice between preference-utilitarianism and hedonistic utilitarianism, the conflict between self-interest and universal benevolence, whether something that it would be wrong to do openly can be right if kept secret, how demanding utilitarianism is, whether we should discount the future, or favor those who are worse off, the moral status of animals, and what is an optimum population.

So I was wrong, on account of outdated info. Thanks for letting me know!

I've always enjoyed this confrontational quote by playwright Bouke Oldenhof, from David Winner's curious-yet-delightful book Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football:

> "Did you ever go to Auschwitz? It is very interesting: every country has its own barracks where it tells its own history. If you want to hear all the lies a nation tells about itself, you should go there: Holland is the most tolerant nation - we have a long history of tolerance; Austria was the first victim of the Nazis; Yugoslavia liberated itself; Poland won the Second World War; and only the Germans are honest. All lies!"

Peter Singer talked about this in 'The Life You Can Save'

http://smile.amazon.com/Life-You-Can-Save-Poverty/dp/0812981561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427395966&sr=8-1&keywords=the+life+you+can+save

I'm sure some people here have some strong opinions on him [I do too] but I actually do recommend this book.

Baggini's The Pig That Wants to be eaten is an excellent and fun start for thinking about general philosophical problems, which is, naturally, an excellent introduction to philosophy.

If you're looking for something more rigorous, Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a tiny and very well-written guide to philosophy almost up to the modern day by arguably the greatest thinker in analytical philosophy of the last century.

You're still wrong about how "experts" view this problem. If you want an "expert" to explain it to you, instead of reading it on the internet, then read this book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019824908X

Again, I wish you the best of luck.

1. A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
   
2. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
   
3. A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present by Howard Zinn
   
4. Dune by Frank Herbert
   
5. The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

I'm halfway through A Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football right now. I'm absolutely loving it!

Socialism/Communism

A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action

Capitalism

The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This

Ancap/Libertarian

Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

If you're interested in Harris's take on it in particular, I suggest looking at this blog post, and also follow the links to some philosophers' reviews of his book, The Moral Landscape. I'm glad Harris responded to his critics, though I don't think he rebutted the most important criticisms.

If you're interested in the underlying question about how ethics might be rationally derived, you could work your way through the SEP page on Kant's Moral Philosophy and investigate others from there. It's pretty dense though! Sidgwick's book that I mentioned above is good and very relevant if you want to trace through the history of these ideas.

If you want to skip to more recent discussion, Simon Blackburn has two books on the topic: Being Good is very accessible and meant to introduce the topics to non-philosophers; Ruling Passions is more technical but IIRC, Chapters 5 and 6 are very relevant to this exact debate and reasonably approachable.

sorry! but i got amazon links :)
https://www.amazon.com/Think-Compelling-Introduction-Simon-Blackburn/dp/0192854259 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0815300557/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me= https://www.amazon.com/dp/0133457982/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me= https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Dragons-Dove-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00ZGROCUQ https://www.amazon.com/Auditing-Based-Approach-Conducting-Quality-Audit/dp/1305080572

Absolutely. Even as a non-believer I acknowledge the Euthyphro as the starting point of an interesting conversation regarding DCT, not where the conversation ends.

Most intro to ethics books don't say the above. For example, the best selling intro to ethics book of all time has a chapter on morality and religion and it treats the dilemma as decisive. Whether that's an okay thing to teach intro to ethics students or not may in part be based on what we think we ought to be teaching them in the first place. Most philosophers aren't egoists, so the textbooks teach the main objections to egoism and move on. Most philosophers aren't relativists either, so we teach the main objections and move on.

Sure, we could say "but, things get a little trickier, because there are certainly some interesting and sophisticated defenses of these views that avoid these objections" but I'm not sure what value that would be to intro to ethics students who aren't really interested in a philosophical career. So I guess it depends on whether you think we should be giving a general overview of the field and the main objections to the views or whether we should give them more details and exceptions than they actually really need to know.

That was a happy coincidence haha, if you want more details on deontology and this whole universalization principle, Kants Grounding for the metaphysics of morals is a great book.(Dont know if amazon links are allowed but: http://www.amazon.com/Grounding-Metaphysics-Morals-Supposed-Philanthropic/dp/087220166X )

Okay, yeah was just wondering so I could compile a list. I've read a few.

These are probably books you'd find more interesting:

Behind the curtain

Tor! The Story of German football

Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football (especially good for learning more about the culture within the Netherlands).

Feel free to PM for any others or questions you may have, I feel these are the main ones that come to mind but perhaps you've read them?

> What does it mean for a truth to be relative to something else?

Well, my entire post was an attempt to answer this question of meaning (see the second sentence, starting with the phrase 'meaning that...'), and it directly addresses the example of your second paragraph, but maybe what I said was unclear.

The relativist thinks that to say "X is wrong" full stop is either incoherent or short-hand for something of the form "X is wrong according to framework F", where the relevant framework is implicitly determined, maybe by criteria of salience.

Again, the analogy to speed is instructive. Suppose a baseball is traveling at 90mph relative to frame F but at 5mph relative to frame G. The question, "but what is its real speed?" is incoherent. If someone at rest in frame F says "the ball is traveling at 90mph", we take him implicitly to be saying that the ball is traveling at 90mph relative to frame F.

Now, suppose someone at rest in G is evaluating the statement of the person at rest in F. Is it true or false? It's true that the ball is moving at 90mph in frame F, but false that it's moving at 90mph in frame G. What should this person at rest in G say?

Answer: he should say that it is traveling at 90 in frame F, traveling at 5 in frame G.

The question of moral truth is analogous, according to relativists.

Other views may use the label 'relativist', but the one I describe is a standard view in philosophy, as defended by Gilbert Harman (in the link I gave above) and criticized by Judith Thomson (same link) as well as by James Rachels in the popular introductory reader, Elements of Moral Philosophy.

As a follow up, Simon Blackburn's [Think](Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0192854259/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_kGZMyb74JTWKH) does a great job at providing a wide landscape of philosophical inquiries and possible solutions.

As well as Bertrand Russell's [Problems Of Philosophy](The Problems of Philosophy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1514341018/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_7GZMyb8QH6M4T) , which does the same.

I'll let some of the other people on here direct you where to dig in and answer your questions more directly, but this was by far the most compelling introductory book for me: https://www.amazon.com/Think-Compelling-Introduction-Simon-Blackburn/dp/0192854259.

I can't recommend it enough to begin, and from there you can branch out with what you find enjoyable

"Justice: What's the right thing to do?" by Michael Sandel is a good book for an overview of different approaches to ethics.

"Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer is the one that really first made me think there's good reason to pick a side.

I've heard this one is good. Haven't read it though.

Currently reading Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy which I've been told is a good introduction. So far it seems to do a good job of explaining in plain language the more confusing aspects of philosophy, which itself can become confusing. I can only take it in like 10 pages at a time.

Also maybe Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

There was a very long debate about psychological egoism, a debate ended by an American philosopher James Rachels in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Philosophy-James-Rachels/dp/0078038243

Philosophy doesn't lend itself very well to bumper sticker wisdom.

If you have the time and inclination I highly recommend Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for a very sensible and convincing contra-religious standpoint on abortion and other moral issues.

I had a long response typed out, but then my browser crashed and erase everything. I'll post the links I was going to attach anyway. Thanks for being so helpful.

https://sexnotgender.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fine_cordelia_delusions-of-gender.pdf

-

https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/barbara-j-fields-and-karen-fields-racecraft-the-soul-of-inequality-in-american-life.pdf

-

http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/THS/article/download/ths.2015.002/8179

-

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5420507_Deconstructing_the_Feminine_Essence_Narrative

-

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7735086_Early_History_of_the_Concept_of_Autogynephilia

-

http://www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia,_a_paraphilic_model_of_GID.pdf

-

http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk/handouts_religion/ReligionFormLife.pdf

-

https://www.amazon.com/Worm-Core-Role-Death-Life-ebook/dp/B00VW7BJ9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1497921511&sr=1-1&keywords=worm+at+the+core

-

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Morality-Brian-Leiter/dp/0415856809/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0415856809&pd_rd_r=W4KKPV25WWB20P0GM410&pd_rd_w=TSyC8&pd_rd_wg=iNVkH&psc=1&refRID=W4KKPV25WWB20P0GM410

Hey man. I am in the same shoes as you. I am going into junior year, and I just started reading Philosophy this summer. I would recommend Simon Blackburn's Think. I am two thirds into it, and its great. He touches on variety of questions and different answers to those questions and arguments for and against those answers, and what effect they have on the world. Here is the link.

This is a good chance for you to get into ethics/morality. Try 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer. It will make you think more deeply and understandingly about morality, including this issue. http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684

do you have any light reading philosphy books? So far all I've read is "The pig who loves to be eaten" https://www.amazon.com/dp/0452287448/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_oXU0DbS4WCZ0F

Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism is an example of an attempt to revive stoic ethical philosophy in a rigorous academic manner.

• Publisher page: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6231.html
  
  
• GoodReads
  
  
• Amazon
  
  
• Brief review: Society for Philosophy in Practice
  
  Edit: added links

AFAIK most of the philosophers are moral realists whether they're atheist or theist. Also Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism may be change your view on morality.

Peter Singer has a new book out about that called The Most Good You Can Do.

This is exactly what you're looking for. I've got two copies. It's good.

This is good theological justification of the type of ideas that Peter Singer has written about. I'm about half-way through right now, and I gotta say... I'm almost a vegitarian...almost.

> should i read critique of pure reason now?

No. Critique of Pure Reason is not about ethics and requires a lot of background and effort to understand. If you want to continue reading about Kant's ethics, Cambridge has published an excellent collection of Kant's books and essays on ethics and political philosophy in a volume titled Practical Philosophy. Maybe read Metaphysics of Morals next.

Are causal readers discouraged from reading introductory ethics texts because there is the vocabulary used by ethicists? Do you know that using this language discourages the causal reader?

I mean to say, some sort of vocabulary is necessary to get enough specificity, and many philosophers that write introductory texts use the traditional vocabulary after introducing how they will use these terms.

Take, for example, Simon Blackburn's Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. It uses most of these terms that Harris thinks are incredibly boring, but it's a huge seller and highly rated by both professional philosophers and the public press (you can't say that about Harris's books).

Like this?

I know you don't want any Huemer facts...but I thought it was cool that Stuart Rachels wrote a back cover review for Michael Huemer's book on Ethical Intuitionism.

I had that Elements too, though unfortunately I'm in the same boat as you so no recommendations. Just...please don't dogmatically adopt ethical theory that leads you to the conclusions you want to be true, m'kay? (cough Ethics of Liberty)

Take your time, don’t be too worrried about needing to have all your opinions in order and arguments to back them up. Ethics and morality is a complicated subject, and if you study it in depth your opinions are going to evolve over time through life experience and discovering nuanced ways of thinking about tough questions. For an intro I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1524704107598

Again dont worry about making decisions about what you think and why. Just read from a variety of sources, have engaging conversations (not arguments) with other people who find the topic challenging, and keep an open mind as you continue to grow and learn. People have spent whole careers wrestling with these questions, there’s no rush!

> I'd rather get moral and spiritual advice from some random rabbi or imam.

"The sheep gives shitty advice - I'll talk to the goose or the dog next time, that'll be so much better."

Why not try to figure shit out on your own. Read a book on ethics or two. Or talk to Humanists. Relying on friends and family for advice is OK too. Actually, doing just about anything will result in better things than following the advice of organized religion.

> Morality is subjective and there are NO moral absolutes.

Honest question: have you ever taken an ethics class? I ask because there is an entire class of people - ethicists - whose task it is to study exactly the question of right and wrong and very few of them hold your position. This is not an argument that democracy determines truth, but rather that when 99% of experts think X and random Joe Shmoe thinks Y, you have to consider that Joe Shmoe is probably wrong (an appeal to authority, which contrary to popular belief is a valid inductive argument and not a fallacy, as opposed to appeal to false authority).

If you're interested in the arguments against moral relativism - of which there are many - ethicist James Rachels deals with them nicely in The Elements of Moral Philosophy(free pdfs online if you don't care about piracy). If you were to be able to demonstrate that his reasoning and proof against relativism was wrong you'd become pretty famous pretty quickly.

But basically, to say that all moral statements are equal is to say that we cannot consider reason when determining ethical answers. That is, if I were to ask you why it's wrong to steal you could probably come up with a good argument. If, however, you were a radical Muslim who believed that subjugating women was right, your argument would have to contain some sort of fallacious reasoning (e.g. an unproved premise such as god, or an appeal to tradition, etc).

The major ethical systems - utilitarianism, deontology, etc - are not based on whims but on well reasoned, deductive arguments. If you want to argue they are invalid then you must find a flaw in the reasoning. You cannot simply state that all morality is subjective without first dispelling the arguments for moral systems which already exist.

Here, play with these for a while. Or pick up a book on ethics. Not that I think either will change your mind. If you start from the premise that any answer you come up to must be the obvious one, then you'll never be disappointed or conflicted.

David Benatar is pretty well known for explicitly arguing that having children is unethical (see his *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence)

Peter Singer is phenomenal for his breadth of topics, he does discuss the ethics of overpopulation and consumption fairly regularly (see this little speech or his book The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty).

Other than that, as TychoCelchuuu suggests, the SEP is a good place to start.

A New Stoicism by Lawrence Becker (if you are interested in ethics). It's not an easy read, but you don't need any external references to understand it.

> It is entirely permissible in logic to hold that something can neither be proven nor disproven, this is the entire reason that we come up with new axioms to add on to our old ones in mathematics.

It might be permissible in logic, but that doesn't mean that there aren't propositions that are either true or false.

> Assuming a strict dichotomy of truth -- and further extending that to provability -- is a fallacy.

I don't know about provability and how that's relevant here, but I don't think that assuming that a proposition like "I have two hands" is either true or false is a fallacy in any way. You might argue that the proposition is somehow not truth-apt, or that there's not a fact of the matter about how many hands I have, but that would be an extremely hard argument to make.

> While it appears that there can be no argument for hard determinism based within the author's definition of "rational discourse", that does not on its own serve as a proof that it is false.

Of course there can be. You deny one of the premises and then provide your own argument for hard determinism.

> The meat here is in the question of whether hard determinism is possibly true, not MFT specifically, but assuming that choices are possible in premise 1 already assumes that hard determinism is false. So the author gets away with technically not begging the question while also already assuming the entire meat of the argument in one of the premises.

He addresses this in Objection #1, especially BQ2 and the last two paragraphs.

> What we must be interested with primarily then is their argument for the first premise, since that's where the actual meat is hidden, and that appears to me to be merely a pragmatic argument, and thus not actually demonstrating proof of veracity.

He doesn't make any 'deep' arguments for P1, because the fact is that there are not many people who are willing to deny it. If he still doesn't "believe that there exist these different senses of 'should'" as he writes there, then I guess the first part of his defense of P1 is his whole 2007 book https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-Michael-Huemer/dp/0230573746 and the second part is so obvious that what he wrote in the free will paper should be enough.

I think you might still be under the wrong impression that this is supposed to be some kind of a mathematical proof, and that the premises must then be a priori true with 100% certainty, but that's not how philosophical arguments work. Typically, all you would need to accept a premise would be to believe that it's more likely true than false. And this doesn't make the argument "practical" in any way.

> Contingent things need explanations for their existence by the definition of contingent. It doesn't need to be deduced since "needing an explanation for its existence" is the definition of contingent. It's just a tautology to say that contingent things require explanations for their existence, like "all bachelors are unmarried"

No, it isn't. You're wrong about this.

To be 'contingent', in philosophy, is simply to be not necessary. Is it a controversial question whether all contingent (i.e. non-necessary) things have an explanation for their existence. That's why the Principle of Sufficient Reason is so controversial.

If you want some quick examples, start with a look at Alexander Pruss's book. I'm pretty sure it's the best-regarded work on the PSR and cosmological arguments from contingency. His whole book is dedicated to defending the principle that "necessarily, every contingently true proposition has an explanation". He doesn't just shrug and say it's a tautology. He spends 110 pages considering objections to the PSR, and then 221 more pages trying to justify the PSR.

Or take the SEP article linked above. It briefly discusses an interpretation of Descartes, where he holds that God's willing of the eternal truths is an unexplained contingency. Is Descartes simply contradicting himself? No, he's saying some contingent truths have no explanation.

Or take the SEP article on the cosmological argument. Here it sketches a version of the argument from contingency. It has a separate premise for "This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence", and correctly notes that this premise "invokes a version of the Principle of Causation or the Principle of Sufficient Reason". It then notes that the premise is challenged by Russell and Hume:

>Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation; it just is. Russell, following Hume (1980), contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe is “just there, and that's all” (Russell, 175).

Can we respond to this view by blithely citing the definition of 'contingent' and accusing Russell of denying a tautology? Of course not. After all, it's simply not part of the definition of 'contingent' that something contingent has an explanation.

Yes. The one about ethics. Here. Or, well, fuck it, here.

>You have yet to justify that just because you control your body means you ought to have exclusivity over it

I forget exactly how it was put, but I heard it described one time that we typically recognize ownership based on people's willingness to defend their preferences. So if I prefer to own my body so much that I'm willing to go to extreme lengths to exclude its use by others, and others don't want to risk as much to take control of it, then the aggregation of the calculations that take place in people's heads tend to align themselves with a 'right to self-ownership'.

I think I heard it from David Friedman, and then a similar thing described by Michael Huemer in his book Ethical Intuitionism.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775

The declaration of human rights is universal across all cultures...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Think by Simon Blackburn.

and

Five Dialogues of Plato.

From the /r/philosophy sidebar: Think, by Simon Blackburn. I've read it, and it's exactly what you're looking for.

The Master and His Emissary, Iain McGilchrist

A Secular Age, Charles Taylor

Reasons and Persons, Derik Parfit

Still looking for a PDF of https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233

Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0199997233 | ISBN-13: 978-0199997237 

Paypal, $3.

just teach them this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233

https://smile.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448

The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher

Yea what if the pig wants to be eaten???

Try The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten by Julian Baggini. Link here

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pig-That-Wants-Eaten/dp/0452287448

Pruss has: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521184398

"On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy" might be the place to look for an answer to this question. (I can't vouch for this particular translation; I just found it with a quick google search. The standard translation is probably the one in the Practical Philosophy volume of the Cambridge edition of Kant.)

over9000plateaus has basically got it right, though.