Cheap First Things (Book) (Hadley Arkes) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of First Things

Rhetorical Wizardry permeated by Philosophical Naivety
There is no doubt that Prof. Arkes is a legal scholar. However, his grasp of the philosophical arguments centering on the subject here is conspicuously lacking. While invoking a traditional argument for the objectivity of morality passed down from Kant and Sidgwick, Prof. Arkes' "First Things" ignores EVERY substantive criticism these positions have recieved. There are very good reasons why none of the top contemporary philosophers working in metaethics and analytic normative ethics have settled for the naive moral realism that Arkes argues for here. The only criticism Arkes countenances is that advanced by the long defunct movement of logical positivism. In fact, Arkes fails even here. He appeals to a question begging argument given by John Searle which totally misses the crucial problem with logical positivism (an argument which even Searle didn't construe as an argument for what Arkes takes it to be). In a nutshell, this is a book written by a very opinionated political science professor whose philosophical naivity and overzealous attachment to morality has quite ironically resulted in a very weak argument for the view he (understandably) treasures.
As a student at Amherst College I have had the experience of debating the issues discussed in "First Things" with Prof. Arkes. Contrary to the rhetoric of this book, his views do not cohere with some 'moral logic', and neither does he. Given a formal argument against his position he neither rejects premises nor accuses the argument of being invalid, but rather does a rhetorical song and dance, appealing to common sensibilities and emotional attachment to moral values: 'I mean come on, really, of course there are objectively true moral principles'. This is as illogical as it gets.
There may be a tenable version of moral realism but this book contains no such view. For those seriously interested in the issue of moral realism and anti-realism see Alexander Miller's excellent and accessible book "An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics" (Cambridge: Polity, 2003). In closing, I must recognize that Prof. Arkes' extrapolations from ethics to politics are, at times, nothing short of brilliant. But this is of little consolace given the extremely suspect ethical theses held by Prof. Arkes.

---

Rich and challenging
Other reviewers here have written about Dr. Arkes' argument re: slavery and moral principles; it is marvelous to see a superb intellectual argument for something that many of us, raised traditionally, accepted as established fact: "of course" there are moral principles, "of course" there are standards of behavior.

To work through this soul-activity of arriving at the apprehension of the truth of those "of courses" is an important exercise that needs to be accomplished by a larger number of members of this polity. There is sufficient evidence to make a logical connection from the argument Lincoln and Douglas contested over slavery to the current public debate about the definition of human life - not in just abortion, but in cloning and euthanasia too.

That argument is succinct: Simply having a plurality of popular opinion in one's favor does not finally establish the moral vindication of a position. Just because the voters in one state "legalize" euthanasia - or "legalize" property rights over other human beings - does not make it right.

There's an interesting discussion in _First Things_ about the morality of pacifism and our society's acceptance of the refusal of certain groups to participate in military service.

Now is a good time to recall that argument - that refusing to serve is not necessarily a more moral position than serving, that there is a moral good in performing a duty that the nation has called one to.

"Conscientious objectors" may be good people - but "conscientious riflemen" may be good people, too.

---

Arkes is a powerhouse!
Arkes tone is at times superior and argumentative. However, this book offers a rare insight into a little known story,the underlying struggle to justify political action. The thesis, that objectively dicernable morals exist, is born out by an analysis that is clear, thorough, and thought provoking. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone who can handle a bit of fun, if heavy, reading.