Reviews for Ethics

The average rating for Ethics based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-03-09 00:00:00 Benjamin Steinberg In many ways this is an excellent survey of ethics. It does a good job of introducing arguments and distinctions that some other surveys might gloss over for the sake of brevity. In contrast with the last ethics book I read, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics, it does a better job of presenting the complexity of the systems and (with maybe one exception--DCT) presenting them in their strongest form. It also does a better job of introducing the student to terminology and distinctions that will be helpful as they continue to study ethics. My main problem with the book relates to the way it fails to present the bias of the authors and where it switches between a "just laying out the options" approach and a "defending what we think is correct" approach. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics was upfront about its commitments. But this book transitions somewhat seamlessly between the authors' stance of what the student should conclude and the options of what the student could conclude. This will probably result in some confused students at best or, at worst, in some shallow thinking where a student fails to realize their own biases. Let me give an example of where the authors might leave the student a bit confused. The authors clearly want to defend some form of secular moral realism. Thus, they adopt the stance, at a few different places, that points at which an ethical system appeals to God are actually problems for that system (e.g. 72). Yet, at the end of the book, when the authors are attempting to meet the challenge of moral skepticism, their response to J. L. Mackie's queerness argument is simply to posit God (231). In other words, by the authors' own logic, Mackie seems to have not been satisfactorily answered. And this also illustrates where the authors' confusingly switch between a "one might take this option" (theism, an option we've indicated earlier shouldn't be preferred) and a "this is what we think is correct" (against moral skepticism, the option we want you to adopt, nevermind part of our case in answering Mackie posited the other option you shouldn't prefer). Other issues would be that in some instances the arguments seem oddly poor, or at least incomplete. Act-intuitionism is criticized as having "some serious disadvantages" (123) and yet, at best, in their argument for moral objectivism at different places throughout the book ("We all generally prefer..." (42); "...generally adhere ... lightly violated... too easily." (117)) the authors' don't seem capable from completely escaping it. Along these lines, there is an odd appeal to "commonsense morality" regarding abortion (36). This is a bizarre appeal which further illustrates the problem of the authors seamlessly switching between taking their position for granted and drawing conclusions from within their stance and attempting to neutrally set forth the moral landscape for the consideration of students. This is an instance where students likely will not be aware of their own moral prejudice and, thus, such statements will leave the student thinking that such-and-such is just "common sense" while also "My ethics were constructed from a neutral vantage point." Another example: "Without the protection of innocent life, nothing would be possible for us" (40). While this might *seem* obvious and not in need of defense, doesn't history indicate otherwise? Won't those who see abortion as the taking of innocent life have a counter-example? Won't those who see the exploitation of women as being a widespread and serious problem (there was an article in NYT yesterday about this) think that actually society can make huge advancements in a variety of areas while treating a huge block of the human population unjustly. Almost all of the problems I mentioned above could be avoided if the authors were more transparent regarding their own biases and flagged them for the student. A few consistency issues would still remain.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-12-11 00:00:00 Jose Cadavid I have read a chapter of this book every week since the beginning of my Fall semester. I am a strong believer and defender of books, and this one in particular has reinforced my claim deeper in my heart. I found myself conversing about utilitarianism, even writing it correctly oddly, and giving people around me advice I learned from this book (not quoting but referencing); to gain satisfaction one must lose it, better socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, egoism does have pragmatic point of views but I will always choose utility, etc. I found myself adding to my reading list books from authors I never knew would interest me like utilitarianism by John Stewart mill. In chapters I was most afraid of, like religion and ethics, I actually found answers to questions I had long asked, and discovered that no matter what, theists will always pursue the greater good. Because in opposition to what the greeks made of their gods, depicting them on the image of men, with all the lust and vengeance one can have in one’s heart, modern theists consider God to be the absolute good, also Thomas Aquinas is a diamond in the rough, we know too little about him as civilian christians and it is a shame. When I picked this book up I had low expectation because I had never read anything philosophical or near philosophical expect Sophie’s world. This book shook me to my core and introduced me to a world of what I never thought was that deontological, (also the usage of long perplexing vocabulary): Ethics. What a world, what an experience, I loved every single bit of it and believe I must read this book at least a couple of times yet, to understand the true meaning of it’s creed.