NY Times Review of Moral Landscape

 
ReasonBerkeley
 
Avatar
 
 
ReasonBerkeley
Total Posts:  1
Joined  13-10-2010
 
 
 
13 October 2010 10:59
 

Although I thought the review in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Appiah-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=moral landscape&st=cse was flawed, I was interested in the bit about the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbuam. Can anyone address the issue of why Sam did not mention them? Their work does seem to be on topic regarding the assessment of well-being.

 
randymajors
 
Avatar
 
 
randymajors
Total Posts:  1
Joined  24-11-2009
 
 
 
19 October 2010 18:20
 

Agreed.  And also Sam should back up and clarify why aspects of the criticisms in the NY Times Moral Landscape book review were flawed.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
sld
Total Posts:  7
Joined  14-10-2010
 
 
 
30 October 2010 02:26
 

From the article:

If the mental states of conscious beings are what matter, what’s wrong with killing someone in his sleep?

That has to be one of the stupidest objections to the book I have ever read.  It’s not worthy of a reply. And in the NYT of all papers!!!

SLD

 
 
Avatar
 
 
mlerma54
Total Posts:  2
Joined  19-01-2014
 
 
 
19 January 2014 16:18
 
ReasonBerkeley - 13 October 2010 10:59 AM

[...] I was interested in the bit about the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbuam. Can anyone address the issue of why Sam did not mention them? Their work does seem to be on topic regarding the assessment of well-being.

More that on topic, it seems to be the best and greatest effort ever invested that could provide firm foundations to the concept of collective well-being - several decades of work deserving a Nobel Prize. But unfortunately it is full of negative results (impossibility theorems). Prof. Sen’s Nobel Prize lecture “The Possibility of Social Choice” gives a glimpse of his lifelong efforts in this regard:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1998/sen-lecture.html