David Neil reviews 'The Birth of Ethics: Reconstructing the role and nature of morality' by Philip Pettit, edited by Kinch Hoekstra with Michael Tomasello

David Neil reviews 'The Birth of Ethics: Reconstructing the role and nature of morality' by Philip Pettit, edited by Kinch Hoekstra with Michael Tomasello

The Birth of Ethics: Reconstructing the role and nature of morality

by Philip Pettit, edited by Kinch Hoekstra with Michael Tomasello

Oxford University Press, $53.95 hb, 393 pp, 9780190904913

The Birth of Ethics is a remarkably ambitious and innovative work by one of Australia’s most eminent philosophers. It is the full-length statement of an argument originally set out in Philip Pettit’s 2015 Berkeley Tanner Lectures on Human Values. The aim of the book is to ‘offer an account of ethics … that makes sense of how we come to be an ethical species’. The extraordinary intellectual creativity of this book has to be understood in the context of the historical currents it opposes and the way it attempts to shift the ground of the debate.

Pettit’s heterodoxy consists in his being both a moral realist and a metaphysical naturalist. Moral realism is the view that at least some moral claims are true, in the same sense that descriptive claims about the world can be true. Naturalism in philosophy is an ontological commitment that the materials from which theories are constructed should consist only of entities, phenomena, and causal relationships that are recognised in the natural sciences. With few exceptions, moral philosophy since the early twentieth century has tended to see naturalism as incompatible with a full-blooded moral realism. The heart of the problem is that true moral claims are ordinarily conceived as bearing universal authority. The claim, for example, that killing an innocent person is wrong expresses a reason for not killing that ought to be compelling for any person, regardless of who or when or where she is or whatever individual desires she may happen to have. A number of influential theories have held that a properly scientific view of the world leaves no room for the mysterious authority of the moral.


Subscribe to ABR


Read the rest of this article by subscribing to ABR Online for as little as $10 a month.

We offer a range of subscription options, including print, which can be found by clicking here. If you are already a subscriber, enter your username and password in the ‘Log In’ section in the top right-hand corner of the screen.

If you require assistance, contact us or consult the Frequently Asked Questions page.

Published in May 2019, no. 411
David Neil

David Neil

David Neil has been a philosophy lecturer at the University of Wollongong since 2005. Before that he lectured in both the Philosophy Department and the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University. His research interests broadly fall under the heading of applied ethics, with a particular focus in bioethics and ethical issues raised by new technologies.

Leave a comment

Please note that all comments must be approved by ABR and comply with our Terms & Conditions.

NB: If you are an ABR Online subscriber or contributor, you will need to login to ABR Online in order to post a comment. If you have forgotten your login details, or if you receive an error message when trying to submit your comment, please email your comment (and the name of the article to which it relates) to comments@australianbookreview.com.au. We will review your comment and, subject to approval, we will post it under your name.