What do you think?
Rate this book
Ethics: The Fundamentals
The Fundamentals explores core ideas and arguments in moral theory by introducing students to different philosophical approaches to ethics, including virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, divine command theory, and feminist ethics.
The first volume in the new Fundamentals of Philosophy series. Presents lively, real-world examples and thoughtful discussion of key moral philosophers and their ideas. Constitutes an excellent resource for readers coming to the subject of ethics for the first time.
The first volume in the new Fundamentals of Philosophy series. Presents lively, real-world examples and thoughtful discussion of key moral philosophers and their ideas. Constitutes an excellent resource for readers coming to the subject of ethics for the first time.
195 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2006
61 people are currently reading
478 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 29, 2018
True to its title, this book sticks to delineating fundamental ethical theories that have had made significant contributions to ethical studies. In the introduction the author notes that the focus of the book will underly normative ethical theory instead of meta-ethical theory (and she stays true to her word) which makes the book a truly comprehensive and easy-to-understand introduction. The chapters follow the structure of description, criticism and counter-criticism, so despite the authors own personal opinions (which are rarely voiced) the readers are given the chance to formulate their own opinions regarding the theories.
I would recommend this to any ethics newbies and even non-newbies who wish to refine what they already know.
I would recommend this to any ethics newbies and even non-newbies who wish to refine what they already know.
January 12, 2020
TIL I am an elbow nihilist
Fascinating intro to a lot of topics I knew nothing about. Very dense. Probably should read it a second time. Might be an easier read for someone who is not as dumb as I am.
Really appreciated the humor that the author was able to incorporate into some of the counterexamples.
Fascinating intro to a lot of topics I knew nothing about. Very dense. Probably should read it a second time. Might be an easier read for someone who is not as dumb as I am.
Really appreciated the humor that the author was able to incorporate into some of the counterexamples.
April 13, 2021
Lättläst bok som ger grundläggande och översiktlig info om olika etiska teorier
February 8, 2012
Very basic, very simplistic, many assumptions. Could be good for 17-18 year olds
November 6, 2025
Difficult to read. And… classic ethics. No answers, only theories, problems for the theories, adjustments to those theories, and still more problems. Nevertheless, I still took away nuggets to gnaw on.
July 22, 2022
An introductory book, exactly what I needed.
November 12, 2021
well I understood about half of it, but at least I came out with more knowledge than I went in with. the writing style was engaging and direct
April 4, 2013
A good overview, very general but does a good job of accomplishing its purpose which is to provide an introduction to Ethics.
January 25, 2026
Julia Driver in Ethics: The Fundamentals demonstrates the fatal flaw of ethics that distinguishes itself from other fields not only as a hopeless endeavour but as a distinctly and disengenously unacademic one.
Modern academics are formed based on proving. Any assertion or postulation must be demonstrated with objective evidence to be true, otherwise it is not. That is not to say that competing theories cannot both have compelling evidence supporting them, but rather that a theory is not compelling if it doesn’t.
Herein lies the problem: a sense of morality is imbued within every soul. Even nihilist Nietzsche initially reached his conclusions through a theodicic questioning of reality, wondering how God could preside over so much suffering, which is a line of questioning rooted in a sense of morality. Driver commences her book by attempting to refute the notion that the existence of God is necessary for the objectivity of moral values. Driver asserts, using the Euthyphro dilemma—“is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”—that this is false, but her reasoning is remarkably poor and exposes the aforementioned “fatal flaw.” Taking the latter possibility, her only refutation is thus—if this is true, then if God commands us to torture kittens, it is right to torture kittens, but that just feels wrong. The keyword is “feel.”
For a thought experiment to be meaningful, one must transplant oneself into the imagined universe, applying to oneself all consequent laws and restrictions. In a thought experiment presuming the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being—the traditional Abrahamic understanding of God—one necessarily becomes an impotent, limited, ignorant, flawed individual, capable of and frequently being wrong, either due to a lack of knowledge or morality. Thus, in such a universe, the way one “feels” is irrelevant, in the way that how a farmer “feels” about the engineering of an aircraft carrier is irrelevant, because the gap in relevant knowledge is so profound. Therefore, in said universe, under the laws that make a thought experiment meaningful, if God commands the torturing of kittens, it is necessarily moral (but God does not command the torturing of kittens, thankfully).
But Driver’s moral compass and, some would say, intellectual stubbornness, impede her from surrendering to these intellectual preconditions. Consequently, the latter proposition is untenable, because her human notions of right and wrong are, as a matter of course, truer than those of the presumed deity who created her. Naturally, then, though nihilists would disagree (another philosophy she fails to categorically disprove), the alternative is the former option—the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. From here, Driver launches into the rest of her book, because if the piety of the pious is extrinsic to God’s decree, it is therefore something independent, and its truthhood is attainable by humans independent of God.
But as previously explained, this entire notion is rooted fundamentally in an unwillingness to accept the possibility that one could be incorrect. Driver simply cannot comprehend that the moral values imbued in her throughout her life could be wrong, and this is what distinguishes ethicists from other thinkers: the latter start with a question, “is x true?”, and then examine the evidence to determine whether or not it is; the former start with an assertion “x (meaning themselves) is true.”, and then cherrypick evidence or arguments to buttress said assertion. This is an unacademic approach and provides no solid basis upon which to have any meaningful discourse.
This plagues Drive throughout her work, which is not without its upsides, particularly in her chapters on Kantianism and Social Contract Theory. But the vast majority of her reasoning inevitably reaches a dead end where she is forced back into the same incomplete, presumptuous conclusion she made regarding God—her morality cannot possibly be wrong. So though there is Ethics, it all boils down to this.
Modern academics are formed based on proving. Any assertion or postulation must be demonstrated with objective evidence to be true, otherwise it is not. That is not to say that competing theories cannot both have compelling evidence supporting them, but rather that a theory is not compelling if it doesn’t.
Herein lies the problem: a sense of morality is imbued within every soul. Even nihilist Nietzsche initially reached his conclusions through a theodicic questioning of reality, wondering how God could preside over so much suffering, which is a line of questioning rooted in a sense of morality. Driver commences her book by attempting to refute the notion that the existence of God is necessary for the objectivity of moral values. Driver asserts, using the Euthyphro dilemma—“is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”—that this is false, but her reasoning is remarkably poor and exposes the aforementioned “fatal flaw.” Taking the latter possibility, her only refutation is thus—if this is true, then if God commands us to torture kittens, it is right to torture kittens, but that just feels wrong. The keyword is “feel.”
For a thought experiment to be meaningful, one must transplant oneself into the imagined universe, applying to oneself all consequent laws and restrictions. In a thought experiment presuming the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being—the traditional Abrahamic understanding of God—one necessarily becomes an impotent, limited, ignorant, flawed individual, capable of and frequently being wrong, either due to a lack of knowledge or morality. Thus, in such a universe, the way one “feels” is irrelevant, in the way that how a farmer “feels” about the engineering of an aircraft carrier is irrelevant, because the gap in relevant knowledge is so profound. Therefore, in said universe, under the laws that make a thought experiment meaningful, if God commands the torturing of kittens, it is necessarily moral (but God does not command the torturing of kittens, thankfully).
But Driver’s moral compass and, some would say, intellectual stubbornness, impede her from surrendering to these intellectual preconditions. Consequently, the latter proposition is untenable, because her human notions of right and wrong are, as a matter of course, truer than those of the presumed deity who created her. Naturally, then, though nihilists would disagree (another philosophy she fails to categorically disprove), the alternative is the former option—the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. From here, Driver launches into the rest of her book, because if the piety of the pious is extrinsic to God’s decree, it is therefore something independent, and its truthhood is attainable by humans independent of God.
But as previously explained, this entire notion is rooted fundamentally in an unwillingness to accept the possibility that one could be incorrect. Driver simply cannot comprehend that the moral values imbued in her throughout her life could be wrong, and this is what distinguishes ethicists from other thinkers: the latter start with a question, “is x true?”, and then examine the evidence to determine whether or not it is; the former start with an assertion “x (meaning themselves) is true.”, and then cherrypick evidence or arguments to buttress said assertion. This is an unacademic approach and provides no solid basis upon which to have any meaningful discourse.
This plagues Drive throughout her work, which is not without its upsides, particularly in her chapters on Kantianism and Social Contract Theory. But the vast majority of her reasoning inevitably reaches a dead end where she is forced back into the same incomplete, presumptuous conclusion she made regarding God—her morality cannot possibly be wrong. So though there is Ethics, it all boils down to this.
April 23, 2025
Got this as a loan from Jordan. I like to think I’m generally open to learning, especially about new fields/content I don’t have a lot of background knowledge of. And I really did give this book a shot. But by the end of reading it, I now know that I just don’t care about ethics as an academic subject. Don’t get me wrong, I understand its value and importance generally, but the argumentation of it is far too granular and tedious for me personally. Also, it requires so much active thought about every possible action we take throughout the day, and it just isn’t feasible to have that much cognitive thought about all of my actions all the time.
July 11, 2025
Overall, this was a great book that laid out different theories of ethics when considering morality, while also providing important critiques of each theory. There is a section that also highlights the issues regarding philosophy's view of women throughout history and their lack of inclusion until recently. Overall, I believe this was a good book and was very informative for someone who has not studied ethics.
September 29, 2023
Very approachable introduction to the topic. Some unevenness in going into depth of the major moral theories, but the read is easy and pleasant. Sketches the landscape and footnotes how to fill in the gaps. In short: perfect for the advertised job.
Read
October 5, 2020read just a few chapters
March 8, 2023
Great and interesting intro to ethics!
September 7, 2024
it indeed offers the fundamentals to ethics.
October 11, 2022
What looked at first glance to be a decent introduction to ethical theory turned out to be shallow and repetitive. There are much better books out there.
February 6, 2017
A smooth introduction to ethics. The book is relatively small and hence lacks detail and depth of analysis, but it provides a nice overview on the most popular ethical theories. It is pleasant to read and its references provide material for further research. The advanced reader will probably not find anything particularly new, but as an introduction it serves its purpose rather well.
October 14, 2015
After my disappointment in Simon Blackburn's 'Being Good'',Julia Driver's book was a breath of fresh air. She gives a thorough account of different philosophical approaches to ethics (including relativism, nihilism and feminist ethics) without the 21st century platitudes that Blackburn indulges in. Driver adds a 'further reading' section at the end of each chapter to satisfy those who want to learn more. This is an excellent, readable introduction for those beginning their study of ethics.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews