Reviews for Ethics

The average rating for Ethics based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-01-26 00:00:00 Javier Sanchez (Real review starts on the third paragraph). I bought this book from a second-hand bookstore in New Zealand with some reservations.The bookstore was closing, (or I might be rushing to go somewhere) and I have this private rule of never leaving a small bookshop empty handed. So I picked this book somewhat randomly, and, since it isn’t really a famous book listed in one of those popular must-read lists, and nor does the author being a famous philosopher, the younger and immature version of myself never thought of finishing this book ever. It was destined to be one of those yellowing, dust-gathering books that I’ll never thought I’d own it in the first place. A couple of years later, again, I picked up this book somewhat randomly. It’s certainly dusty but its pages were not yet yellow. I began to read the first chapter out of curiosity, and, after half an hour, I was glued to it as if I’m reading a detective thriller rather than a dry philosophy textbook. To call the book totally moist is an exaggeration, and it is certainly a philosophy textbook, most likely a required reading for philosophy courses on Ethics at certain American universities. Indeed, the book itself is composed in a way that is accessible for young undergrad students, with topics neatly arranged according to concepts and questions for discussions to boot. And Lawrence M. Hinman, the author, uses a lot of simple analogies and some semi-dated pop cultural references to drive home his messages. Is it a fun reading? Certainly not. But is it friendly towards the reader? It’s certainly trying its best to be accessible, despite its dry matter, and I found myself hooked from cover to cover. This book provides an overview of the development of moral concepts in the Western philosophical tradition. Hinman states that there is no single all-encompassing definition of morality. There are disagreement between various schools of thought on what constitute good ethics. There are two schools which we seem to contradict with typical notions of morality. Ethical relativists, for instance, believe that morality is relative to a culture, and no one has the right to deem any practices outside of his own culture as immoral. Then, there are the ethical egoists, who believe that a person should do what’s best for himself, irregardless of its impact upon others. It’s type of belief most favoured by libertarians and staunch capitalists. Also, there are notions of morality that are religiously rooted. Morality is a matter of obeying God, or/and not be in disharmony with nature. Overall, despite most major religions preaching good against evil, there are differences in what constitutes good ethics. Islam and Christianity, for example, believes in one God who is synonymous with goodness – different from the Navajos, who believe that their Gods too are capable of committing good acts as well as evil ones. These differing conception of Gods also leads to different conception of ethics, with Islam and Christianity favour believers who faithfully follows God’s commands, while the Navajos exalt people who manages to find balance with nature, between good and evil. Secular concepts of morality are also discussed in this book. The three main secular ethics are the ethics of utilitarianism, Kantian ethics of duty and respect and the ethics of rights. Utilitarianism believes that good actions strives to act in manner that benefits as many people as possible, irregardless of the intention behind the actions. This contrast with the Kantian notion of ethics, who insists that good actions must be accompanied by good intentions that are rational and unchangeable – doing good is a matter of duty, not a matter of convenience. The ethics of Rights, meanwhile, demands that a certain minimal rights must be enjoyed by a free, rational human being (or certain vulnerable groups of people) to ensure that justice is meted. In all of those theories, Hinman provides a concise outline before he discusses each of their strengths and weaknesses. He contends that, due to the numerous notions of ethics that are conflicting, and yet, valid in varying degrees, there should be an approach that seeks to synthesise all of it without one theory totally overcoming the other. The approach that he advocates is pluralistic. One can hold steadfastly to a preferred school of thought, but one must also be open to criticisms of his school’s shortcomings from other school of thoughts. Each school complements each other, without the need to obliterate one theory over the other. To realize this synthesis, Hinman favours agents who embody the Aristotelian concept of virtue. In the end, Hinman argues, moral decisions are made by humans, not theories or abstract notions of ethics. And good moral decisions are made by people with good character. Therefore, to live a moral life, one must cultivate the character of virtuous person who knows how to find balance in daily practices, who made principled yet practical decisions, who strives for human flourishing. A virtuous person should enjoy doing good actions. He didn’t view being good as a matter of duty or principle that should not be tied to personal interest. Emotional attachment to goodness ensures that good moral decisions can be made consistently on long-term basis. Several complaints, though. I found the author’s description of Islam in the The Ethics of Divine Commands chapter rather simplistic, and seems to be mostly based on second-hand sources written by Western scholars. The author acknowledges that he didn’t found many books that discusses Islam in the bookstores, and he himself admits that he cannot sufficiently do justice in describing the religions mentioned (including Islam). Still, it seems to portray Islam as a religion provide its adherents with much agency, expected to obey God’s orders at the expense of personal discretion. Another thing that I found lacking is that the author fails to account on how class positions can affect the notion of morality. He did so with gender, recounting that traditional concepts of morality are male-centric, and females have a more intimate, and personal, concept of morality. He also addresses that minority ethnicities, especially ones that have been oppressed, may have also developed unique notions of ethics, like an emphasis retaining self-respect in the face of humiliation. However, he failes to address on how class positions can also affect views on morality. Rienhold Niebuhr had addresses this in his seminal work: Moral Man and Immoral Society. He reveals that traditional concept morality seems to be favouring those from the bourgeosie or the dominant class, and any collective actions from the lower classes that demand justice can be made to look as if it is an immoral act. It is certainly an interesting topic of discussion, and perhaps contention, but I found it disappointing that Hinman ignores the class aspect entirely, without even briefly mentioning it. Even if he disagrees with this, he could’ve address this issue rather than conveniently not mentioning it at all. His action (or inaction) is not that different from the action of olden-day male philosophers who ignore female voices when they try to provide insight into the moral theory. Likewise, Hinman ignores voices exclaiming that class matters.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-07-27 00:00:00 Duncan Fleming I had to read this book for Philosophy 107 Ethics class. I quite enjoyed learning bout ethics. This book helped during class. It was a heavy reading class but the notes that i had and also reading the book gave me a better understanding on how we could use ethics more in our daily life. The more we learn about the ethics; the more we could get a better point of view of ourselves and others around. I had some moments when I stop reading because it seem to repeat and drag. I stuck thought the 8 week course with this book and it was great. " IF" You like to read about ethics, this is a good recommendation to start off with.