The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics by Clive Hamilton

The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics Reviews

• 
  Ann-Marie

  I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge on the topic of philosophy is pretty scanty. Therefore, it's entirely possible that much of what was discussed in this book had another level that I was missing. However, about half-way, I couldn't shake the suspicion that there was some literary sleight-of-hand going on. Some statements seemed arrived at with dubious cognitive leaps that had me scratching my head. Whilst there was much that was interesting in this book, the claim that religion wasn't necessary to explain and enforce the human moral code seemed to fall short. This is not to say that I believe religion is necessary for this issue, but I felt as if religion and God were just given different labels here. There was the exhortation that when in doubt as to what is the moral option to take in a situation, that we listen to our internal moral voice that has a link to the "noumenon" and that will give us our answer. So, in order to make a moral judgement, one must aready be connected with that which is moral? In which case, why would we be fumbling around in the first place wondering what the moral option is? There was very little discussion as to what the course of action is for a vast majority of people who, for whatever reason, are very much beholden to their immediate desires of eat-buy-take-sex-react. If the loss of morals and ethics is bemoaned here, there is little concrete advice as to how we dig our way out of the pit. And perhaps that was never the point of this book, but I was left with the feeling that the author really couldn't explain to my satisfaction what the point of secularising ethics achieved in practical terms.
• 
  Cody

  Not too long ago I picked up Clive Hamilton's, Freedom Paradox: Towards A Secular Ethics
  
  I picked it up assuming it would be trash, then I read the preface and was given some hope. The entire point of the book is basically that there must be an objective morality, that we can discover and ground outside the claims of higher authority and secret knowledge presented by religion.
  
  After having finished the book a few weeks ago, I think it is fairly well written and mostly well argued, but I feel like it ultimately fails. It's not enough to recognize that morality must be objective if it's not just relative, you have to account for source of that code. If man is the source, it can't be objective.
  
  Some may argue that if there be no higher authorities, then it would by necessity have to be a man made product. To me, if we accept that and agree that morality is objective, that then would be evidence for god(s), but that's a tangent. Point remains.
  
  I will say, he relies heavily on Kant and Schopenhauer, but draws from a great deal many philosophers. I am fairly familiar with Kant, in a kind of overview grand scheme of things kind of way, but Schopenhauer I'm not at all familiar with other than to be aware that he was a philosopher.
  
  Even though I don't fully endorse the book, and I certainly don't agree with it, I do highly recommend it as an example of modern philosophy that isn't just utter trash.
  
  
  To be fair to Owen, he does kind of account for this. In what I would call placing morality in something akin to the form of forms. But I'm actually ignoring it, because to me that's bumping up against the claims of secret knowledge of religion he sought to avoid.
  
  
  Also to be fair, he tries to distinguish it from the "The Good", but I felt it was such a weak argument I've forgotten it. And, if he hadn't of planted the seed of the forms, I probably would have been lost, that to me proves a link.
• 
  paspatel

  This book is about a moral theory grounded in the metaphysics of empathy: we all share the same Origin.
  There are two types of manifestations of this metaphysical empathy: compassion (ie, care) and the will to justice (ie, fairness).
  The ethical position derived from the author’s theory has the grounds to deny moral relativism and theology, and is argued in a compelling way. Unfortunately, the author spends little to no time elaborating on specific guidelines that might arise from his proposed “post-secular ethics.”
• 
  ·

  (6 March, 2012)
  
  Showed great promise: interesting subject, well written, clear and concise - then disappointment set in. The digression into noumenon was rather long(-winded), his examples of it seemed tenuous. The book as a whole came uncomfortably close to self-help territory and it felt theistic at times. Hamilton made sense most of the time but he made a few assumptions that I could not, or would not, make.
  
  Caveat lector.
• 
  Simon Mittag

  Freedom of choice hasn't made us any happier? Incredible analysis of western society and obviously the authors attempt to build something meaningful on top of Kant, Nietzsche. Read if you are a philosophy enthusiast but maybe not as the first book on the subject. Hard to digest and I often had to pause to think about what the last pages were all about. Definite text book feel with little consideration for accessibility. Don't let this detract you, it's worth it.
• 
  Oliver

  Wow! I loved this book. I'm definitely going to read it again. It combines my passions: metaphysics, moral philosophy, frugality, and spirituality. I found it was an absolute pleasure to read especially the introductory chapters. I can see that it could be quite heavy for those unused to philosophical text, but I loved it. One of the best books I've read in ages.
• 
  Nicky Lamond

  Thought provoking. The Freedom Paradox brings together different ways of thinking in a way that helps illuminate them all.
  
  When reading through some of the metaphysics I felt like I was wading through sludge, but it's worth the perseverance as these concepts help to underpin the thesis of the book.
• 
  Catharina Nawangpalupi

  I love reading Hamilton writings, from Growing Fettish, Affluenza and other papers from the Australia Institute.. This is his latest book.. more philosophical thoughts here...
• 
  Luke

  Good read, if flawed at times.
• 
  D A Calf

  I liked this but the dissertation on Kantian ethics that falls in the middle was perhaps overly long.
• 
  Keira

  Reading it for an essay & am surprised to find I'm enjoying the thoughts it's engendering.