Few philosophers in the history of western
philosophy have written books targeting a popular audience. Most philosophers
have written manuscripts their colleagues barely understand. Bertrand Russell’s
"shilling shocker" of 1912, entitled The Problems of Philosophy,
is an exception to this rule. This book began a legacy of philosophical
manuscripts accessible to the common person. Some philosophers have followed
Russell’s lead, e.g., Thomas Nagel’s What Does it All Mean and, most
recently, Simon Blackburn’s Think. Grayling has authored a book surely
to be ranked among these classic popular introductions to philosophy.

Grayling’s book contains 60 brief
essays drawn from works he had published in The Guardian, a major British
newspaper. Each essay puts a philosophical spin on an issue we encounter in
everyday life. Surveying the table of contents reveals a concentration in the
moral, political, and religious issues of the day, e.g. sex, marriage, symbols,
liberty, slavery, remembrance, and madness. The book divides neatly into seven
categories, including Anger and War, Nature and Naturalness, and Reading and
Thinking to name a few. The candid style of Grayling’s writing gives his book a
flavor that may be judged as unfashionable in the analytic tradition of the
twentieth century.

Grayling’s candor leaves
comprehensiveness aside, which popular philosophy books tend to incorporate.
For example, Russell gives equal consideration to empiricist and rationalist
epistemologies, though Russell’s empiricist predilections are clear. Grayling
fails to consider both sides of the philosophical coin; instead, he lets the
reader judge whether to agree or disagree. In the essay entitled,
"Profit," he asserts that profit is good for those who work hard, but
"wrong enters the picture when profits are made out of others’ loss or
suffering (p. 101)." He thinks that it is wrong for someone to acquire too
much profit. Grayling cites the profit of oil producers and contends that oil
companies unjustly earn $600 profit every second.

Grayling’s view on profit deserves
some scrutiny. First, Grayling fails to consider the tremendous skill required
for oil drilling, refining, and distribution. Petroleum engineers work
"very hard" to produce, refine, and distribute oil in an efficient
and environmentally friendly manner. So, oil companies’ profit seems justified
by virtue of their hard work.

Second, with new domestic and
international laws proscribing oil producers from drilling in parts of the
world and the rising labor costs of skilled workers, it is hard to imagine that
Grayling is correct in thinking that oil companies make as much as $36,000
profit every minute. Oil companies may accrue this much in revenue, but revenue
is different from profit. The numbers seem askew in Grayling’s account.

Finally, Grayling does not find
consumers blameworthy for oil companies’ profits. Consumers ought to be morally
blameworthy because they always want more than they already have. Consumer
demand is what keeps oil companies in business. If people want it, then why
shouldn’t the oil companies’ profits be as high as they are? The only way to
reduce the oil companies’ profits is to stop driving gas guzzling sport utility
vehicles and sport cars. Consumers ought to turn in their Masserati for a
Hyundai or try electrically powered public transportation if they think that
oil companies make too much money. We cannot blame oil companies for the high
profit margins if all we want is more oil for our recreation.

Grayling’s liberal attitude at
times gives way to a weak conservatism. For instance, in the essay
"Slavery," Grayling argues that those who feel they should be
compensated for the suffering of their ancestors at the hands of tyrannical
slave-owners would do a greater service by attending to present-day slavery
instead. Since all of us had an ancestor who was a slave somewhere sometime,
this fact should ease everyone’s mind about past suffering. Though Grayling is
no doubt correct that all of our ancestors could have been slaves, this does
not give us a reason to ignore our ancestors’ past sufferings. Slavery is
morally reprehensible in all times no matter how long ago, five minutes ago or
five hundred years ago. To say that slavery existent today deserves greater
consideration than slavery in the past is tantamount to arguing that some forms
of slavery ought to be dismissed. This cannot be correct. Slavery is wrong,
regardless of when it occurred.

Despite Grayling’s overwhelmingly
liberal stance, the essays in the book provoke one to think about each topic,
and the accessible style makes the book a joy to read. Even the most ardent
critic will have to carefully consider each of Grayling’s arguments. Anyone
with an interest in political, moral, or religious issues is well advised to
read this short introduction to philosophical issues. Grayling’s lucid style
and creative thoughts will delight any reader.

© 2004 Joe Ulatowski

Joe Ulatowski is a Ph.D.
student in the department of philosophy at the University of Utah. His
interests include metaphysics and epistemology, particularly the philosophy of
logic, foundations of mathematics, and philosophy of science.

Categories: Philosophical, Ethics