I did not find it very well written either. The author did say that he had written it in a brief interlude of available time, but that is only an explanation, not much of an excuse.

Still, I stuck it out to the last chapter which turned out to be the bit that I had bought the book for, the bit where the author says what he thinks and why, and cheap at the price, and I only encountered injury after insult. He proposes his idea of (to be fair) an outline of a sketch of how he would go about basing an ethical system on no principles. My blood pressure went through my eardrums when I found that he not only tried to justify imperatives on no sounder basis than any of the writers he had criticised, but suggested as his basis, the hierarchy of ideas of what would be most universally regarded as (un)desirable by everyone. Then he glibly selected items which were diametrically opposed to what a lot of people think, and not only those in remote cultures which certainly would stare in bemusement at his idea of the unthinkably horrible. Many (most?) who more or less share his culture, might none the less invert much of his hierarchy of (un)acceptability. Certainly some of the things which he thought the worst of all worlds, seemed to me less of a concern than some he regarded as in comparison just so-so horrible.

This is a particularly inept idea, compelling acceptance of principles on the basis that no doubt everyone agrees on some universally common and non-trivial denominator of them. That way cogency certainly does not lie, whether he goes back to elaborate his thoughts and expand his outline to a completed structure or not. To assume that his pet hierachy of hates and loves and griefs should command the outlook and moral compulsions of the human race is smug beyond belief. (We e e elll, would you accept "beyond belief in a professional philosopher"?)

Now, you may think I am being stupid or nasty or just plain halitotic, but if anyone wants to argue the point, it had better be the author, because I damwell refuse to reread that book to defend my views against anyone else. Fortunately I doubt that the one person with what I regard as the moral basis for demanding that I defend my criticism, will be at all interested in my doing so.