Are you authoritarian or libertarian? Are we morally obligated to end the world? And just what’s wrong with eating your cat?
Would You Eat Your Cat? challenges you to examine these and many other philosophical questions. This unique collection of classic and modern problems and paradoxes is guaranteed to test your preconceptions. Jeremy Stangroom creates contemporary versions of famous dilemmas that explore the morality of suicide and the ethics of retribution. He then delves into the background of each conundrum in detail and helps you discover what your responses reveal about yourself with a unique morality barometer. Are you ready to have your best ideas confronted and your ethical foundations shaken? If so, then Would You Eat Your Cat? is the book for you.
©2010 Elwin Street Productions (P)2013 Audible, Inc.
I am an avid listener. I listen between 75-100 hours per month on my iPhone: 60% fiction to 40% non-fiction.
This short book offers up 25 dilemmas in five differing categories. The author seeks to help you see both sides of the argument by pointing out those arguments that float and those that sink in the philosophical cesspool. By offering a moral barometer and characterizations like 'if you agree with x then you are mostly likely are a kind of y' he attempts to herd the listener into their ethical position. As with most philosophers, the author offers simple mind experiments luring you into a snap answers, then he makes it a tinsy more complex, twists it just so, does a bait and switch and before you know it you are agreeing that a villain should end the world or suicide is okay.
The organization of the book is problematic for listeners. He first poses each question, one after another, without fluff which loads you with all of these questions, then in part two he deconstructs each one of the 25. For someone listening who does not have a pen and paper while driving down the highway considering whether a 'train conductor should kill one person, five or 500 if the one person is your mother' I found it a touch too overwhelming. You should listen to this book in a place where you can write and jot some notes.
What's is good: it is brief and to the point. Not so good: as usual philosophers don't seem to see grey, its just this evil, that evil and more evil disguised as evil. Give it a listen, at least you will conclude whether you'll think Buffy is tasty.
The book presents scenarios, asks the reader to make a decision, and makes brief philosophical arguments for each side citing relevant philosophical theories. I found the arguments shallow and often had other reasons to come to my decision based on sociology and psychology that were not touched on.
The book was good, but the author outlines all of the scenarios at the beginning and then goes back in the second part to explain them without refreshing the actual scenario. It forces you to really remember what was said. Probably best to listen if you have a full 3 hours to do the whole thing at once. Otherwise very interesting thought experiments
I like information and I especially like compelling and interesting information. This book is neither and reminds me of someone that simply has a weird mindset to begin with which is why THEY find these thoughts interesting. But I also hear there are those that like rope burn, so what can you do?
It is okay.
I never imagined ethics could be so much fun. (OK, full disclosure, I'm an ethics dweeb, but ---). This appeals to the (better nature of the) 19-year-old boy inside me, but make no mistake: it's wild but serious and SMART. The cartoonish thought-experiments are uneven here and there, but I haven't ever had so much fun and thought-provocation in 3 hours of my time. This is just how I like to teach the endless stream of 19-year-olds passing through my classes. And the price is right. Oh, and yes, of COURSE I would eat my cat. What, you wouldn't?
Report Inappropriate Content