God's Call

This book, compiled from three lectures on moral theology from John Hare, was another in the large pile of stuff I'm having to blast through for research for a philosophy essay. Most of them I'm only reading sections but this one was shortish and the whole book was quite relevant so I dedicated a day in the library to it and here we are, I have to write a post about it now.

   I'll be brief because it is academic philosophy and I don't want to effectively rewrite portions of my essay, or indeed an abstract. The book explores a new attempt at interpreting divine command theory, with specific focuses on the fact that God communicates with humans in a way subjective to them, and therefore how objective moral realism is reconcilable with human autonomy in following theistic commands. The points were argued well, with a thorough overview of the history of 20th-century ethics and how John Hare believes shortcomings in developing theories of meta-ethics throughout having various reconsiderations and revisions, culminating in his own view which he calls "prescriptive realism". This is strongly compatible, though not dependent, on theism; and so he goes on to discuss the divine command theories of Duns Scotus, an influential medieval thinker, linking prescriptive realism with a coherent moral system and also with christian theology. He then finishes the book with a chapter on Kant, re-reading the great philosopher's work on meta-ethics with a conscious awareness of its originator's sincere christian beliefs, and in taking them seriously thus shows that they are not at all incompatible with divine command theories, as most modern writers in ethics would say Kant is. For a short book, John Hare presents some big ideas, and in his approach through the history of philosophy he does great justice to them in many ways, but one does wish a longer, more thorough, more systematic exposition and explanation of his ideas and their implications were given.

   I've already made loads of notes on my responses to the ideas of the book and my thoughts on them, but they're handwritten in my essay binder in my bag which is on the other side of the room, so I can't be bothered to go through all the motions necessary to recount them here, especially since I also need to get on with other essay reading. Most of the remaining books I only have to skim or read sections of, which is fortunate as it keeps resultant blogposts to a minimum.

   Anyway, it was great help for my essay, and I enjoyed reading it. Anyone who's interested in theism, ethics, the history of philosophy, and the boundaries between these three, should consider checking the book out.