What do you think?
Rate this book
Ethics Basics: A Jargon-Free Guide For Beginners
How to Think About Right and Wrong
Ethics Made Simple
In Ethics Basics: A Jargon-Free Guide for Beginners, Dr. Doug Erlandson offers an easy-to-understand introduction to philosophical ethics. Drawing on his three decades of teaching introductory college-level courses in philosophy, Erlandson takes the reader step by step through the various approaches to ethics, describing the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. His straightforward, non-technical presentation makes ethics understandable even to those who have no background in philosophy. While Ethics Basics is organized by topic it also devotes substantial space to the theories of major philosophers past and present.
Ethics Basics Answers These Questions What is ethics? Is egoism immoral? Should I always act to maximize happiness? What is virtue? Why should I be moral? And much, much more. ˃˃˃ Suitable as a classroom text and independent studyThis book is suitable for introductory classes in ethics and philosophy, home-schooled students and those who are interested in studying independently.
Scroll up and grab a copy today.179 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 12, 2013
5 people are currently reading
10 people want to read
About the author
Doug Erlandson
30 books17 followersDoug Erlandson was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1946. He received his B.A. from Wheaton College (Ill.) and his doctorate in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University. Doug was an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln 1972-1980 and since 1994 has been an adjunct instructor of philosophy at Southeast Community College in Lincoln.
Doug is the author of 19 books, including the popular Kindle book, How to Think Clearly: A Guide to Critical Thinking; the Jargon-Free Guide Series, including Philosophy Basics: A Jargon-Free Guide for Beginners; Faith Reborn; Spiritual Anorexia: How Contemporary Worship is Starving the Church; Godly Contentment: Kingdom Living in an Age of Economic and Social Uncertainty.
Doug and his wife are co-owners of the online candy store Licorice International, which is located in the Historic Haymarket District in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Doug is the author of 19 books, including the popular Kindle book, How to Think Clearly: A Guide to Critical Thinking; the Jargon-Free Guide Series, including Philosophy Basics: A Jargon-Free Guide for Beginners; Faith Reborn; Spiritual Anorexia: How Contemporary Worship is Starving the Church; Godly Contentment: Kingdom Living in an Age of Economic and Social Uncertainty.
Doug and his wife are co-owners of the online candy store Licorice International, which is located in the Historic Haymarket District in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 24, 2017
This book covers as it says the basics of ethical theory. After an opening introductory type chapter, and one on determinism and free will, he goes on to discuss various ethical theories. The theories discussed are moral relativism, utilitarianism, deontological, natural law, virtue, care, and religious. This is followed up with an afterward. The book also contains a few endnotes, both commentary and reference types (in which he fails to italicize book titles).
My remarks are numerous so bare with me. I am only giving the Kindle locations in brackets [] at the beginning of each comment, but not any actual quotations. This is due to the character limit on goodreads for reviews. I hope that you will be able to get what part of the text I am commenting on without actual quotations.
[64] I do not think that declaring where you stand in relation to ethical theories is a bad thing. If I would have written the book, I would have said where I stood, like I have tried to do in this review. As you will see from the rest of my comments, my views are on the eclectic side with a few central focuses.1
[121] By acting immorally in one situation we become more liable to act immorally in others. This is why Aristotle’s virtue ethics is an important component, but not the only one, to morally correct behavior.
[240] Unpredictable does not mean noncausal or undetermined, so this argument fails. Besides, if we knew someone well enough we may indeed be able to predict her or his actions.
[248] An undetermined act is no more compatible with free will than a fully determined act.
[255] We feel negative emotions when we observe the bad behavior and positive ones when we observe good behavior for the most part.
[276] Not if you believe the basis of morality is feelings, which can be reasoned about with the facts at hand (or to be discovered) to help give moral guidance.
[336] The external constraint or internal compulsion notion of when an act should not be considered free is correct in the legal sense. And, it is correct as far as it goes, but it is basically definitional. It also shows one of the ways that free will (or freedom more properly) is used. I believe what we are really talking about when we insist on free will is a felt emotion; this is exactly what I believe free will is—a feeling.
[430] There is more than just stating what is right or wrong. Feelings are not felt in the absence of facts. There maybe extenuating circumstances we do not know about. So, this is a far to simplistic approach.
[445] Again facts are not unimportant to these right and wrong statements. Is there evidence of harm or benefit? I suppose the emotivist would claim that these terms are evaluative as well. My main point is these kinds of statements are not made in a factual void. And, what if that is all we had to go on—these evaluative type statements? Feelings are not negligible in life, so does it matter if feelings cannot be said to be factual statements. We live with our feelings and most if not all our decisions are decided in part because of our feelings. And, this is supported by findings in neuroscience, which would be factual under the positivist program.
[493] While emotions as described by them maybe wrong, especially in everyday usage, it does not negate the fact that emotions are the ultimate source of all our moral evaluations. This is moral subjectivism, which Erlandson turns to next. While not able to stand completely alone it contains within a good deal of our moral evaluative practice.
[510] Under moral subjectivism facts are not unimportant, and along with feelings we use reasoning in relation to them. I do not think he realizes how hard it is to separate feelings and reasoning.
[518] The moral subjectivists’ claim that there are no objective moral truths is not a moral truth; it is a metaethical statement. It is a fact about moral truths, but it is not a moral truth itself. Besides this, when is anything objective proven true in a philosophic sense? The best we can hope for is intersubjectivity, where all or most people know or perceive the same thing. When applied to ethics all or most societies come to believe about the same ethical principles. Sure, there are differences between most societies, but there is much more agreement. Most societies have a code similar to the ten commandments, starting with honor your parents (which when reframed as respect works) through bearing false witness (which can be broadened to do not lie). We all have similar judgments, and when we do not, with or without moral subjectivism, no single ethical theory reigns between or in most societies, so disagreements are going to arise.
[557] Russell is actually making a factual statement. He is not calling hell irrational; he is calling those that believe in it irrational. There is no evidence for hell actually existing, therefore it is irrational to hold such a belief. Irrational is a factual claim based on its meaning here; someone is held to be irrational if they believe in a nonexistent entity (this by the way includes god).
[585] Our feelings do fluctuate at times, so complete consistency should not be expected. And, what ethical theory gives one this ability?
[630] First, just because we do not agree does not mean we cannot feel that it is wrong. Second, we are not criticizing this culture’s ethics from within, but from the outside. That culture can claim what it wants, but there are facts and reasons that can help to argue against their ethical (or anything else) positions.
[646] Intense disagreements are one reason why moral subjectivism rooted in feelings makes sense. Each side feels they are right on a moral issue, and reason differently on the feelings and facts they have. Also, both sides can be right to a degree. Someone can believe that abortion is alright before the second or third trimester, and not after it. Capital punishment maybe okay for premeditated murder, but not for any other crime.
[653] Under moral subjectivism there is no rightness or wrongness in the world; only feelings and reasoning about them and the facts. What changes are the way the majority chooses to view the moral situation. If this seems unacceptable to some, it is the way things are (or so I believe), and just like a moral view, one can accept it or not. While I do not defend cultural relativism, only moral subjectivism, majority rule is how law is made in a democracy. This is so except for appellate court decisions (common law); it is a fait accompli. It is better than authoritarian rule where only one or a few decide. Anyway, I like him to show me where there is definitive moral objectivity for or against various moral positions like the ones he mentions (abortion, capital punishment, or euthanasia) or any other. People’s moral position are not so sacrosanct or autonomous because we more often than not adopt the morals of the family and the community we grow up in. Where do these objective moral truths reside, some Platonic limbo. Just denying or showing the problems with subjectivisms does not give an argument for the existence of moral objectivity. Subjectivism is the real position we are in. In other worlds we have more evidence for this position than objectivity. An individual must come to a decision on what they should do. How are they supposed to determine an objective course of action, especially when it resides behind a veil? The best that we can do is use our moral feelings and reason with them and any facts at hand to make the best moral decisions we can, whether alone or in conjunction with others.
[715] While, I do not defend hedonism per se, ethical behavior towards others is achievable because I think more people are happier doing the right thing. This is nice people are in general happier than mean people.3
[913] I would add to his dig at utilitarianism that it is also time consuming. I wonder if this type of calculation done on a computer would take more time than the universe has been around.
[968] Any rule based ethics would usually be okay if there were exception clauses; although, without moral feelings they would not have been formulated in the first place.
[1005] This is because we most often we let our moral feelings guide us, and usually need to reflect only when there is some conflict going on.
[1020] While this true, it is taking utilitarianism to extremes. There are spheres of influence; the further out you go the less responsibility you should have toward others’ happiness.
[1193] May not these intuitions actually be our moral feelings, or arise from them?
[1208] We bring in reasons and facts to our intuitions; they do not act by themselves. Intuitions are where we start from more often than not when we encounter a situation where a moral decision is called for.
[1223] Intuitions are nothing but moral feelings made conscious, or so I think. By the way, intuitions or moral feelings do not come error free, but than neither does reason.
[1238] Any ethical theory should make room for exceptions; we often need to inject some pragmatism to actual life situations.
[1260] Resolving of disputes under any ethical theory can be difficult. It can be difficult even within a particular theory, but when two people are arguing from different theories it can be difficult, very difficult, or impossible.
[1415] If emotions drive conduct why can he not accept moral subjectivism. Without the emotions that drive us to see things as either good or bad we would be amoral creatures, not exactly the world I would chose. Zombies rule. He uses “evil” here, but I prefer bad because evil has religious connotations, which needless raises the emotional state, especially for those that belief in god. And then, it can lead them to enact an inquisition or burn witches (both highly emotional events).
[1453] Actions done in secret seems to be a problem with all ethical theories, except moral subjectivism based on feelings because we naturally tend, more often than not, to do the right thing, and while the world is not perfect, on the whole most people act fairly moral, and I believe this is because of our moral feelings. When people do not act right, we have criminal justice systems, and moral preachers who can correct some of the guilty, so that things turn our somewhat better. And, this may be the best we can hope for.
[1486] Why is suicide wrong at all? The fact that suicide occurs at all, contradicts that we naturally seek to preserve our own life. Plus, natural law presupposes that each thing has an essence; however, this Aristotelian notion is now out of favor because of evolutionary theory.
[1501] I say to Aquinas, what about those humans that lack rationality? Babies certainly to do not have it, as well as some individuals with dementia. There are also psychotics, whose reasoning is often twisted. None of these people would Aquinas consider rational by his standards, but all of them are human beings.
[1564] Death is natural, so under natural law we should always let people die without treatment.
[1586] So far it appears that he really has not proven any of his claims. He just seems to make statements like abortion is wrong in all cases, and where he provides an argument it is usually wrong from my perspective.
[@1723] After reading the section on natural law I believe it suffers two connected major problems. Who is doing all this purposing, and its reliance in most cases is on god doing it. This assumes a dubious claim that god exists.
[1887] In my Kindle version of The Ethics of Aristotle Aristotle never uses the term “golden” in his discussion of using the mean as the aim of a virtue lying in the middle of two extremes. The golden mean equals, rounding off 1.61803339875. Using this as a mean a virtue would lie outside and greater than the upper extreme of the continuum. Even if you just use the decimal part it still would not be the exact middle of Aristotle’s mean; it would be almost one sixth to the right. Granted, Aristotle’s mean is popularly called the “golden mean.” But, I feel a philosophy teacher should give it straight from the horses mouth.
[1933] I like to see some facts to back up this claim of stopping to try being good. Anyway, subjective moral feelings is what motivates us to act morally in most situations.
[1985] Does it matter. All it assumes is a person’s virtues can be improved with proper perspective and practice. In addition those who are born naturally good do not need virtue ethics in the first place. But, there are no such individuals.
[1994] It would be awful naive of anyone to think we can reach this type of perfection, no matter what our natural bent may be, which I doubt is toward “wrongdoing.” After all we are no moral machines that can be programmed to reach such heights.*
[2009] This is why virtues that are thought to be important change over time. We, far more than any other animal, learn from our experiences.
[2016] Virtue ethics offers its own guidance. This is why no ethical theory is able to stand alone, even moral subjectivism (or my developing version of it)2 that I have been defending. It is also naive to think Aristotle thought that there should be no moral guidance.
[2110] It sounds similar to moral subjectivism. I would add under a principle of care we owe the most to our immediate circle of people, but that we should seek to expand this circle as much as is in our power.
[2141] This is like it should be under moral subjectivism, anchored in moral feelings. The key it seems with an ethics of care is the feeling of empathy. However, once our empathy urges us to help, we often have to use reason to figure how best to.
[2247] Someone would be a selfish person if they acted uncaring when not being seen, which few of us our. And, when empathy comes bubbling up, it urges us to act whether observed or not. Plus, when it comes to caring the more you care in one situation the more likely it is that you will care in another a la virtue ethics, so we need to use all our moral tools. Again, he seems to think that this being unobserved objection destroys all ethical theories. Also, although a person performs acts of caring, the driving force behind these actions is actual caring, not likely to be turned off when not observed because caring is a disposition (like a virtue that has been practice until it becomes second nature) as well as the performance of caring acts.
[2257] I have very little patience for religious ethics. God disapproves according to the Bible to bearing false witness (which I suppose could be generalize to do not lie), but it appears to sanction plenty of deception. Jacob deceives his father Isaac into giving him the first child’s blessing, and Tamar tricked Judah into getting her pregnant, which is considered a good lesson in the need to practice levirate marriage. And, if you do not rely on the Bible or other sacred scriptures, how do you know what god commands?
[2289] Even without the modern science dilemma, many Christians find themselves having to ask: “What would Jesus Do?”4 And, then try to imagine what he would do in their situation that is not addressed in scripture because the Bible does not speak of their situation.
[2410] This is trouble for the divine command theory. However, if this were to be so, we would just have to live with it, after all god is telling us to do these things. By the way, in some of the stories in the Hebrew Bible god specifically tells the Israelites to do these things. Genocide and taking of property, including human beings, were their common dealings with the Canaanites and their neighbors. Saul even lost his kingship because he failed to carry these things out along with seeking a witch for advice. See above for the condoning lying.
[2440] He does command cruelty, and he threatens cruelty to those that act against his wishes, like eternal damnation for not believing in Jesus—for not even hearing of Jesus. Second, if god is all powerful he should be able to do anything he wants. And third, who determines what a righteous nature is? God. Then are you stuck with whatever god decides is righteous.
[2480] It seems to be the only argument to stand up to his what if nobody is watching argument. Well, this is the worst theory in the whole book. One because it is false. There is no god. Erlandson does not argue for god’s existent, an, it is inconsistent. Second, in reality it hardly seems to work for most believers at least some of the time, and religious believers can be one of the most harmful of groups to women, children, and other not male, and nonwhite (which is odd since Jesus if he existed at all as a human being would not have been white, and the original Greek and Roman believers were not exactly lily white either).
[2500] I cannot imagine anyone, including myself, that would be better equip to deal with daily moral decisions, let alone the “bigger” issues of today just by reading this introductory book on ethics, or any other introductory book, or any other book on ethics or morality. Do not misunderstand me here; it is certainly important to read what others have thought, but I do not think just a single book of any kind, no matter how good, is enough. In my opinion life teaches best, which includes reading, thinking, feeling, and attention to the facts. Certainly it is important to know how to reason well (which I do not feel the author was always able to do), but it is also important to know our moral feelings, and that we our responsible for them and our actions. And, practice makes perfect. How many self-help books out there tout the research on how long it takes to form a new habit. The same applies to moral habits, and this is why virtue ethics is a component to good ethical behavior. And, we should not shy away from forming rules of thumb for what is right to do in cases that fall under them. And, let us not forget that we must always keep in mind a pragmatic approach is worth considering in a lot of moral situations. I would also add that many people go through life never having read a book on ethics (the Bible does not count), and act morally most of the time.
I am torn in how to rate my experience with this book. It was weak in its arguments, and somewhat disingenuous in his claim to have tried to eliminate his biases. These two come together when his most potent argument against a particular ethical theory is it cannot solve the problem of motivation to act morally when not being watched. This is part of the weakness of his arguments. His disingenuousness shows up at the end when he claims divine command theory circumvents this type of objection, which it obviously does not in practice (see above comment). However, the book did bring a lot of my critical skills to task. In addition it provided me a way of sharpening my own ideas on moral subjectivism, as well as an outlet for the same in this review.
I could hardly recommend this book to anyone. It may have been marginally valuable as a text for his introductory ethics class at the community college he teaches at. If I were the professor I would expect more from my students. Anyway, I would seek out a peer-reviewed introductory ethics work if you would want to learn and develop ethical concepts and theories. I guess the book would be okay if all you needed to do is pass exams, and not have to write a serious paper.
1 See my blog “What Do You Mean?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress....
2 I intend to in a future blog post on moral subjectivism.
3 This is another plan blog post of mine - “Can Mean People Be Happy?”
4 I have a satiric and caustic blog entitled - “What Would Baxter Do?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress....
* Would would a strong AI machine act morally perfect.
My remarks are numerous so bare with me. I am only giving the Kindle locations in brackets [] at the beginning of each comment, but not any actual quotations. This is due to the character limit on goodreads for reviews. I hope that you will be able to get what part of the text I am commenting on without actual quotations.
[64] I do not think that declaring where you stand in relation to ethical theories is a bad thing. If I would have written the book, I would have said where I stood, like I have tried to do in this review. As you will see from the rest of my comments, my views are on the eclectic side with a few central focuses.1
[121] By acting immorally in one situation we become more liable to act immorally in others. This is why Aristotle’s virtue ethics is an important component, but not the only one, to morally correct behavior.
[240] Unpredictable does not mean noncausal or undetermined, so this argument fails. Besides, if we knew someone well enough we may indeed be able to predict her or his actions.
[248] An undetermined act is no more compatible with free will than a fully determined act.
[255] We feel negative emotions when we observe the bad behavior and positive ones when we observe good behavior for the most part.
[276] Not if you believe the basis of morality is feelings, which can be reasoned about with the facts at hand (or to be discovered) to help give moral guidance.
[336] The external constraint or internal compulsion notion of when an act should not be considered free is correct in the legal sense. And, it is correct as far as it goes, but it is basically definitional. It also shows one of the ways that free will (or freedom more properly) is used. I believe what we are really talking about when we insist on free will is a felt emotion; this is exactly what I believe free will is—a feeling.
[430] There is more than just stating what is right or wrong. Feelings are not felt in the absence of facts. There maybe extenuating circumstances we do not know about. So, this is a far to simplistic approach.
[445] Again facts are not unimportant to these right and wrong statements. Is there evidence of harm or benefit? I suppose the emotivist would claim that these terms are evaluative as well. My main point is these kinds of statements are not made in a factual void. And, what if that is all we had to go on—these evaluative type statements? Feelings are not negligible in life, so does it matter if feelings cannot be said to be factual statements. We live with our feelings and most if not all our decisions are decided in part because of our feelings. And, this is supported by findings in neuroscience, which would be factual under the positivist program.
[493] While emotions as described by them maybe wrong, especially in everyday usage, it does not negate the fact that emotions are the ultimate source of all our moral evaluations. This is moral subjectivism, which Erlandson turns to next. While not able to stand completely alone it contains within a good deal of our moral evaluative practice.
[510] Under moral subjectivism facts are not unimportant, and along with feelings we use reasoning in relation to them. I do not think he realizes how hard it is to separate feelings and reasoning.
[518] The moral subjectivists’ claim that there are no objective moral truths is not a moral truth; it is a metaethical statement. It is a fact about moral truths, but it is not a moral truth itself. Besides this, when is anything objective proven true in a philosophic sense? The best we can hope for is intersubjectivity, where all or most people know or perceive the same thing. When applied to ethics all or most societies come to believe about the same ethical principles. Sure, there are differences between most societies, but there is much more agreement. Most societies have a code similar to the ten commandments, starting with honor your parents (which when reframed as respect works) through bearing false witness (which can be broadened to do not lie). We all have similar judgments, and when we do not, with or without moral subjectivism, no single ethical theory reigns between or in most societies, so disagreements are going to arise.
[557] Russell is actually making a factual statement. He is not calling hell irrational; he is calling those that believe in it irrational. There is no evidence for hell actually existing, therefore it is irrational to hold such a belief. Irrational is a factual claim based on its meaning here; someone is held to be irrational if they believe in a nonexistent entity (this by the way includes god).
[585] Our feelings do fluctuate at times, so complete consistency should not be expected. And, what ethical theory gives one this ability?
[630] First, just because we do not agree does not mean we cannot feel that it is wrong. Second, we are not criticizing this culture’s ethics from within, but from the outside. That culture can claim what it wants, but there are facts and reasons that can help to argue against their ethical (or anything else) positions.
[646] Intense disagreements are one reason why moral subjectivism rooted in feelings makes sense. Each side feels they are right on a moral issue, and reason differently on the feelings and facts they have. Also, both sides can be right to a degree. Someone can believe that abortion is alright before the second or third trimester, and not after it. Capital punishment maybe okay for premeditated murder, but not for any other crime.
[653] Under moral subjectivism there is no rightness or wrongness in the world; only feelings and reasoning about them and the facts. What changes are the way the majority chooses to view the moral situation. If this seems unacceptable to some, it is the way things are (or so I believe), and just like a moral view, one can accept it or not. While I do not defend cultural relativism, only moral subjectivism, majority rule is how law is made in a democracy. This is so except for appellate court decisions (common law); it is a fait accompli. It is better than authoritarian rule where only one or a few decide. Anyway, I like him to show me where there is definitive moral objectivity for or against various moral positions like the ones he mentions (abortion, capital punishment, or euthanasia) or any other. People’s moral position are not so sacrosanct or autonomous because we more often than not adopt the morals of the family and the community we grow up in. Where do these objective moral truths reside, some Platonic limbo. Just denying or showing the problems with subjectivisms does not give an argument for the existence of moral objectivity. Subjectivism is the real position we are in. In other worlds we have more evidence for this position than objectivity. An individual must come to a decision on what they should do. How are they supposed to determine an objective course of action, especially when it resides behind a veil? The best that we can do is use our moral feelings and reason with them and any facts at hand to make the best moral decisions we can, whether alone or in conjunction with others.
[715] While, I do not defend hedonism per se, ethical behavior towards others is achievable because I think more people are happier doing the right thing. This is nice people are in general happier than mean people.3
[913] I would add to his dig at utilitarianism that it is also time consuming. I wonder if this type of calculation done on a computer would take more time than the universe has been around.
[968] Any rule based ethics would usually be okay if there were exception clauses; although, without moral feelings they would not have been formulated in the first place.
[1005] This is because we most often we let our moral feelings guide us, and usually need to reflect only when there is some conflict going on.
[1020] While this true, it is taking utilitarianism to extremes. There are spheres of influence; the further out you go the less responsibility you should have toward others’ happiness.
[1193] May not these intuitions actually be our moral feelings, or arise from them?
[1208] We bring in reasons and facts to our intuitions; they do not act by themselves. Intuitions are where we start from more often than not when we encounter a situation where a moral decision is called for.
[1223] Intuitions are nothing but moral feelings made conscious, or so I think. By the way, intuitions or moral feelings do not come error free, but than neither does reason.
[1238] Any ethical theory should make room for exceptions; we often need to inject some pragmatism to actual life situations.
[1260] Resolving of disputes under any ethical theory can be difficult. It can be difficult even within a particular theory, but when two people are arguing from different theories it can be difficult, very difficult, or impossible.
[1415] If emotions drive conduct why can he not accept moral subjectivism. Without the emotions that drive us to see things as either good or bad we would be amoral creatures, not exactly the world I would chose. Zombies rule. He uses “evil” here, but I prefer bad because evil has religious connotations, which needless raises the emotional state, especially for those that belief in god. And then, it can lead them to enact an inquisition or burn witches (both highly emotional events).
[1453] Actions done in secret seems to be a problem with all ethical theories, except moral subjectivism based on feelings because we naturally tend, more often than not, to do the right thing, and while the world is not perfect, on the whole most people act fairly moral, and I believe this is because of our moral feelings. When people do not act right, we have criminal justice systems, and moral preachers who can correct some of the guilty, so that things turn our somewhat better. And, this may be the best we can hope for.
[1486] Why is suicide wrong at all? The fact that suicide occurs at all, contradicts that we naturally seek to preserve our own life. Plus, natural law presupposes that each thing has an essence; however, this Aristotelian notion is now out of favor because of evolutionary theory.
[1501] I say to Aquinas, what about those humans that lack rationality? Babies certainly to do not have it, as well as some individuals with dementia. There are also psychotics, whose reasoning is often twisted. None of these people would Aquinas consider rational by his standards, but all of them are human beings.
[1564] Death is natural, so under natural law we should always let people die without treatment.
[1586] So far it appears that he really has not proven any of his claims. He just seems to make statements like abortion is wrong in all cases, and where he provides an argument it is usually wrong from my perspective.
[@1723] After reading the section on natural law I believe it suffers two connected major problems. Who is doing all this purposing, and its reliance in most cases is on god doing it. This assumes a dubious claim that god exists.
[1887] In my Kindle version of The Ethics of Aristotle Aristotle never uses the term “golden” in his discussion of using the mean as the aim of a virtue lying in the middle of two extremes. The golden mean equals, rounding off 1.61803339875. Using this as a mean a virtue would lie outside and greater than the upper extreme of the continuum. Even if you just use the decimal part it still would not be the exact middle of Aristotle’s mean; it would be almost one sixth to the right. Granted, Aristotle’s mean is popularly called the “golden mean.” But, I feel a philosophy teacher should give it straight from the horses mouth.
[1933] I like to see some facts to back up this claim of stopping to try being good. Anyway, subjective moral feelings is what motivates us to act morally in most situations.
[1985] Does it matter. All it assumes is a person’s virtues can be improved with proper perspective and practice. In addition those who are born naturally good do not need virtue ethics in the first place. But, there are no such individuals.
[1994] It would be awful naive of anyone to think we can reach this type of perfection, no matter what our natural bent may be, which I doubt is toward “wrongdoing.” After all we are no moral machines that can be programmed to reach such heights.*
[2009] This is why virtues that are thought to be important change over time. We, far more than any other animal, learn from our experiences.
[2016] Virtue ethics offers its own guidance. This is why no ethical theory is able to stand alone, even moral subjectivism (or my developing version of it)2 that I have been defending. It is also naive to think Aristotle thought that there should be no moral guidance.
[2110] It sounds similar to moral subjectivism. I would add under a principle of care we owe the most to our immediate circle of people, but that we should seek to expand this circle as much as is in our power.
[2141] This is like it should be under moral subjectivism, anchored in moral feelings. The key it seems with an ethics of care is the feeling of empathy. However, once our empathy urges us to help, we often have to use reason to figure how best to.
[2247] Someone would be a selfish person if they acted uncaring when not being seen, which few of us our. And, when empathy comes bubbling up, it urges us to act whether observed or not. Plus, when it comes to caring the more you care in one situation the more likely it is that you will care in another a la virtue ethics, so we need to use all our moral tools. Again, he seems to think that this being unobserved objection destroys all ethical theories. Also, although a person performs acts of caring, the driving force behind these actions is actual caring, not likely to be turned off when not observed because caring is a disposition (like a virtue that has been practice until it becomes second nature) as well as the performance of caring acts.
[2257] I have very little patience for religious ethics. God disapproves according to the Bible to bearing false witness (which I suppose could be generalize to do not lie), but it appears to sanction plenty of deception. Jacob deceives his father Isaac into giving him the first child’s blessing, and Tamar tricked Judah into getting her pregnant, which is considered a good lesson in the need to practice levirate marriage. And, if you do not rely on the Bible or other sacred scriptures, how do you know what god commands?
[2289] Even without the modern science dilemma, many Christians find themselves having to ask: “What would Jesus Do?”4 And, then try to imagine what he would do in their situation that is not addressed in scripture because the Bible does not speak of their situation.
[2410] This is trouble for the divine command theory. However, if this were to be so, we would just have to live with it, after all god is telling us to do these things. By the way, in some of the stories in the Hebrew Bible god specifically tells the Israelites to do these things. Genocide and taking of property, including human beings, were their common dealings with the Canaanites and their neighbors. Saul even lost his kingship because he failed to carry these things out along with seeking a witch for advice. See above for the condoning lying.
[2440] He does command cruelty, and he threatens cruelty to those that act against his wishes, like eternal damnation for not believing in Jesus—for not even hearing of Jesus. Second, if god is all powerful he should be able to do anything he wants. And third, who determines what a righteous nature is? God. Then are you stuck with whatever god decides is righteous.
[2480] It seems to be the only argument to stand up to his what if nobody is watching argument. Well, this is the worst theory in the whole book. One because it is false. There is no god. Erlandson does not argue for god’s existent, an, it is inconsistent. Second, in reality it hardly seems to work for most believers at least some of the time, and religious believers can be one of the most harmful of groups to women, children, and other not male, and nonwhite (which is odd since Jesus if he existed at all as a human being would not have been white, and the original Greek and Roman believers were not exactly lily white either).
[2500] I cannot imagine anyone, including myself, that would be better equip to deal with daily moral decisions, let alone the “bigger” issues of today just by reading this introductory book on ethics, or any other introductory book, or any other book on ethics or morality. Do not misunderstand me here; it is certainly important to read what others have thought, but I do not think just a single book of any kind, no matter how good, is enough. In my opinion life teaches best, which includes reading, thinking, feeling, and attention to the facts. Certainly it is important to know how to reason well (which I do not feel the author was always able to do), but it is also important to know our moral feelings, and that we our responsible for them and our actions. And, practice makes perfect. How many self-help books out there tout the research on how long it takes to form a new habit. The same applies to moral habits, and this is why virtue ethics is a component to good ethical behavior. And, we should not shy away from forming rules of thumb for what is right to do in cases that fall under them. And, let us not forget that we must always keep in mind a pragmatic approach is worth considering in a lot of moral situations. I would also add that many people go through life never having read a book on ethics (the Bible does not count), and act morally most of the time.
I am torn in how to rate my experience with this book. It was weak in its arguments, and somewhat disingenuous in his claim to have tried to eliminate his biases. These two come together when his most potent argument against a particular ethical theory is it cannot solve the problem of motivation to act morally when not being watched. This is part of the weakness of his arguments. His disingenuousness shows up at the end when he claims divine command theory circumvents this type of objection, which it obviously does not in practice (see above comment). However, the book did bring a lot of my critical skills to task. In addition it provided me a way of sharpening my own ideas on moral subjectivism, as well as an outlet for the same in this review.
I could hardly recommend this book to anyone. It may have been marginally valuable as a text for his introductory ethics class at the community college he teaches at. If I were the professor I would expect more from my students. Anyway, I would seek out a peer-reviewed introductory ethics work if you would want to learn and develop ethical concepts and theories. I guess the book would be okay if all you needed to do is pass exams, and not have to write a serious paper.
1 See my blog “What Do You Mean?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress....
2 I intend to in a future blog post on moral subjectivism.
3 This is another plan blog post of mine - “Can Mean People Be Happy?”
4 I have a satiric and caustic blog entitled - “What Would Baxter Do?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress....
* Would would a strong AI machine act morally perfect.
Displaying 1 of 1 review