Understand Ethics

by Mel R. Thompson

Is this the right book for me?

An accessible introduction to ethics
Whether you're a student studying philosophy at any level, or simply want to gain a deeper understanding of this fascinating subject, Understand Ethics is an accessible introduction to all the key theories and thinkers. Fully updated, this latest edition includes contemporary examples and discussion of current debates including terrorism, genetics and the media, helping you to grasp how ethics applies to life today.


Understand Ethics

Chapter 1: the art of living
What makes something moral?
What is the point of ethics?
What price integrity?
Rights and responsibilities
The art of living

Chapter 2: Free to choose?
What kind of freedom?
Determinism
Reductionism
Freedom and the State
How much freedom does morality need?

Chapter 3: What do we mean?
Three kinds of language
Defining key terms
Some theories
'Is' and 'ought'

Chapter 4: Is it natural?
Does it have a 'final cause'?
Some features of 'natural law'
How do you decide what is 'natural'?
Applying 'natural law'
Are we naturally good or bad?
Evolution, change and the natural law

Chapter 5: Looking for results
Egoistic hedonism
Utilitarianism
Forms of utilitarianism
General criticisms of utilitarianism

Chapter 6: The experience of moral choice
Conscience
The categorical imperative
The creative response
Determined and yet free?
.
.
Chapter 7: Personal development and virtue
Altruism?
Nietzsche
Virtue ethics
Existentialism
Humankind, Marx and Freud

Chapter 8: Law and order
Society and moral choice
In whose interest?
Is equality possible?
A social contract
Crime and punishment
Capital punishment
In self-defence?
Civil disobedience
If Nietzsche were a civil servant...

Chapter 9: Religion and moral values
How are religion and morality related?
The basis for religious ethics
Religious values and society
Should religious freedom be restricted?

Chapter 10: Scepticism and relativism
Philosophers or politicians?
Situation ethics
Relativism and moral absolutes

Chapter 11: Applied ethics
The natural environment
Animal rights
International issues
War and peace
Gender issues
Sexual issues
Some issues in medical ethics
The beginning and end of life
Business ethics
Media issues



Learn effortlessly with a new easy-to-read page design and interactive

Not got much time?
One, five and ten-minute introductions to key principles to get you started.

Author insights
Lots of instant help with common problems and quick tips for success, based on the author's many years of experience.

Test yourself
Tests in the book and online to keep track of your progress.

Extend your knowledge
Extra online articles to give you a richer understanding of the subject.

Five things to remember
Quick refreshers to help you remember the key facts.

Try this
Innovative exercises illustrate what you've learnt and how to use it.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Reference

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Aug Mdc · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful starter book to the world of moral language, philosophical theories and the great struggle to define good and evil.

[Roni Cairns · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only reason that I would lower the rating for this book is simply the fact that it was so short. However, this is necessary, as stated in the book, because it covers so much general ground. It makes me want to read more books on general and specific ethical/moral theories and those who have written them. This is a great introduction to ethics. Bravo!

[Johnny · Rating 3 out of 5]

In teaching a university course in Ethics, I’m constantly looking for new case studies (or, at least, case studies and illustrations that are new to me). So, even though the teach yourself: [e.g. Astrophysics] series might be considered only a step above the idea of the [e.g. Astrophysics] for Dummies, I decided to read teach yourself: ethics because it offered case studies from the U.K. perspective (and it never hurts to review your material from someone else’s approach). Initially, the discussion elucidates on intentionality, sympathy, duty, and more as the book progresses, but the first discussion on ethics focuses on what people do. As early as page 8, it attempts to divide human actions into: a) Moral actions (reflecting personal and societal values), b) Immoral actions (counter to personal and societal values), and c) Amoral actions (not based upon any decisions regarding personal or societal values – or even norms). Of course, even though so-called “moral actions” may be based on personal values, Thompson quickly observes that these actions affect others as well as oneself, “Issues that are morally significant usually have to do with relationships, arguments between parties, intentions, and possible outcomes.” (p. 8) In short, though this isn’t the wording used by Thompson, ethical decisions have consequences.
I appreciate that Thompson isn’t like many empiricists, believing that human action is strictly dependent upon mechanistic causes, but that he recognizes the viability of “free will.” Yet, in arguing for “free will,” I was thankful to see that he doesn’t believe that humanity is “absolutely free.” Rather he recognizes that there are external moral pressures in life. BUT, he insists that despite these mechanical influences, there are still “free choices” to be made since one can think about whether to conform to or reject those externals (p. 25). Indeed, Theists might even appreciate Thompson’s example that others who observe his behavior might come to conclusions about his personality and, based on their observations, accurately predict what he would do in a given circumstance. BUT, their prediction doesn’t take away his choice, even if it turns out to be correct (p. 25)
The volume has an interesting anecdote in this consideration of “free will.” Apparently, in February, 2006, some thieves in the U.K. got away with over $50 million pounds in banknotes. The security manager of the local depository was complicit in handing over the funds because he was not only held at gunpoint, but was told that his wife and son were also being held and would be harmed (if not killed) should he not cooperate with them. He was not blamed for his participation in the robbery because his actions were under duress (pp. 29-30). To be sure, he could have refused to cooperate so we must consider this “free choice” despite the factor of coercion.

The author did a good job of explaining natural law by referring to Aristotle’s idea of an efficient cause which gets things done and a final cause is the end product (p. 47). Mel Thompson uses the illustration of a knife carving a wooden statue. In Aristotle’s teleological argument, the knife would be the efficient cause and the statue would be the final cause. Why? It’s because everything has a purpose. He goes on to point out how St. Thomas Aquinas built upon that teleological argument and asserted that there is a proper end (telos) built into the world by God such that it would be the final cause and, presumably, when humans conformed to the proper end, they would be the efficient causes, as well as good because, as a good knife is sharp, good human action facilitates the “end.” Aquinas, of course, called this “natural law” (p. 48). I liked Thompson’s efficient explanation of the “law of double effect” and how it applied to, for example, to a doctor prescribing a contraceptive to a woman experiencing severe pain and irregularity in her menstrual cycle. The “law of double effect” would allow even Catholics to accept the contraceptive because the purpose of the pill was not to circumvent conception and procreation (which would be, for a good Catholic, sin) but to reduce pain. Since the contraception would be a secondary effect rather than primary, one is not violating the natural law or divine command (p. 49). This argument may be the philosophical equivalent of a vigorous Irish jig, but it is valid to some. This approach is reprised on pp. 187-188.
A lot of modern ethicists denigrate this idea of natural law because they think it has no real meaning. They drift back to David Hume’s argument that you can’t get an “ought” or “ought not” from observing the state of what exists (picked up later by G. E. Moore—p. 44). Yet, it may be that the so-called modern ethicists are protesting the implication of a final cause in that once such a proper end was known, it would apply to all people at all times (p. 51). This would definitely undermine the popular ideas of relativism in our culture. Of course, the problem with basing morality on “natural law” is that one cannot always tell what that final cause is going to be. But there can be a proper end, no matter what one believes. As Thompson cited Henri Bergsen’s (1859-1941) Creative Evolution, who felt that the moral approach is to act in a way that enables one to follow the direction of evolutionary life in the direction of the future and not act in a way to disrupt that flow of evolution (p. 58). Once again, though, the problem is knowing the flow of evolution so one can make that decision. Of course, Nietzsche didn’t believe in an “end” in itself, he saw the goal of morality as aiding humanity in going beyond the current state (p. 95).
Thompson’s discussion of ethical egoism begins with Niccolo Machiavelli, though the author of The Prince was not an ethical egoist per se. Yet, he is a 15th century example of the mantra we often hear/read from ethical egoists (and Ayn Rand’s brand of so-called “Objectivism”). This volume summarizes this mantra as: “…people will do what is right only under compulsion and generally will do what is in their own interest.” (p. 62) Unlike Rand, however, the 15th century consiglieri to royalty doesn’t use this as a springboard to determining how to do good or evil (although we may not agree with Rand’s selfish attitude toward what is “good”). Rather, he uses it to counsel his charge(s) to be willing to do what is evil to enhance or sustain their self-interest.
Ethical egoists, on the other hand, may build their lives as though the prime good is fulfilling their self-interests but they do recognize a difference between “short-term self-interest” and “long-term self-interest” where the former seems of immediate value but may have extenuating disadvantages or penalties too costly to make the former seem counter-productive (p. 64). The question, at least, for an ethical position is whether even my long-term self-interest is worth the possible pain experienced by many others. Hence, the discussion quickly turns to utilitarianism.
Simply put, utilitarianism is doing whatever produces the greatest benefit for the most people. While this has seemed easy and practical enough to use as a guideline, there are certain uncomfortable anomalies. Thomson gives the example of “rough sleepers” (aka “homeless”) in the U.K. of the turn of the millennium (p. 66). One would have thought that “soup runs” and other charity help would have made their lives better. A study showed that this help was keeping people on the street instead. So, how does one measure what benefits the most in the greatest way? Thompson defines the traditional “Act Utilitarianism” (requiring one to do a benefit analysis of every situation—p. 68) and “Rule Utilitarianism” (making rules for similar situations using earlier analysis—pp. 69-70), but he also defines “Preference Utilitarianism” (perform the analysis while taking into consideration the preferences of individuals concerned (ie. affected—p. 72).
Strangely enough, Thompson lumps Immanuel Kant in with Plato, William Butler, David Hume (p. 91), and Francis Hutchinson in believing that we know what is right and good such that our consciences can ride herd over our baser desires. I’m not comfortable with that since even Thompson, citing Aquinas (p. 78) recognizes that consciences can be skewed by passion, ignorance, or habits. Kant, on the other hand, developed the categorical imperatives to provide a rational benchmark for behavior as opposed to relying purely upon conscience. Yet, even Kant believed that a person did what said person knew was right whenever they applied these imperatives (p. 81). In my classes, we usually focus on the first two formulations of Kant’s categorical imperatives (universalizing and treating others and ends, not means to an end) but Thompson adds the third formulation of acting as though one is responsible for legislating a society where everyone is an end and no one is a means. This helps to reveal the “right thing” to do for an entire society (pp. 80-84). Of course, different people will conceive of the right thing to do for a society in different ways. Things would work out conceivably better if we really could see a universal acceptance of the principles he presupposed: God, freedom, belief in after-life (p. 84).
I’m not sure the discussion on virtue ethics is quite what I’d like, but I really enjoyed Thompson’s summary of the reason virtue ethics still has a modern appeal. He wrote, “…it moved away from the idea of simply obeying rules, to an appreciation of how one might express one’s fundamental nature and thus fulfil one’s potential as a human being.” (p. 96) I wasn’t entirely prepared for the segue to Marx (which I would have expected closer to Kant—pp. 100-101) and Freud, but Freud definitely deals with “conscience” in the superego and so Thompson can say, “…all the structure of moral claims an principles that the super-ego looks to for support, are therefore subject to self-development as their criterion.” (p. 101) That wouldn’t have worked for the classical ethicists. For them, ethics was what your personal character did for the polis, the city-state. Morality wasn’t done in a vacuum.
Fortunately, Thompson moves from the discussion of personal development to a consideration of ethical schemes for society. He begins with what I just stated about Plato and emphasizes David Hume’s skepticism about justice stating that it was impossible to achieve a justice based on what people deserve, simply because people don’t agree on what each deserves (p. 106). Then, while Thompson summarized Hobbes’ basic belief in monarchy (quite apropos since published near the end of the English Civil War in 1651—though he didn’t get his way under Cromwell), he really didn’t focus on the ideas of why people agree upon a social contract and how that applies to social ethics beyond political structures (p. 107) Fortunately, he does note Rousseau’s conviction that natural human sympathy would encourage them to give up certain liberties for the betterment of the whole (p. 108). After moving through some other philosophers who considered an ethics of social obligation, Thompson spends a through a series of case studies (most in the early part of this millennium). The chapter on social ethics concludes with an amusing consideration of societal roles for a modern Nietzsche or Machievelli (p. 123).
I thought Thompson did a remarkably good job of giving a headline summary of the world’s major religions and pointing out that some operate out of religious authority (scripture and leaders) while others work from an innate sense of rightness (natural philosophy), yet there is still a baseline against such acts as murder. Whether under authority or in harmony with “life,” human life is precious and shouldn’t be denied (p. 140). He goes on to tell of the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 1998. Although the bishops believe the Bible clearly teaches monogamy, they agreed in that conference that when a man with more than one wife converts to Christianity, he doesn’t have to dispatch enough of them to become monogamous (p. 141).
I liked his comparison of Kant and Machiavelli to see the nature of the absolute versus the skeptical. Kant posited a categorical imperative; The Prince posits a hypothetical imperative. Kant argues we must treat people as ends rather than means; Machiavelli warns that treating people as ends may lead to chaos and anarchy. Kant follows a “golden rule” principle that we ought to do what we wish others would do to us; Machiavelli has almost a reverse “golden rule” where one ought to do what others would do to you, given their own self-interest and half a chance (p. 147).
Another type of relativism than skepticism is “situation ethics,” the mid-20th century idea that the most ethical thing to do is the most loving thing to do. Thompson rightly brings up the problem of using the most loving thing to do as one’s “absolute” truth. It doesn’t work when others don’t accept that as truth and decide to do evil acts or whatever they can get away with (p. 151).
The latter half of the book was replete with discussion starters for what Thompson referred to as Applied Ethics, applying ethics to specific fields and endeavors. He approaches environmental ethics by considering how utilitarian approaches might focus too much on benefits of short-term duration regarding ecological consequences and natural law might be a better fit (p. 157), but in considering genetic modifications of organisms, he notes that natural law may be too focused on the “unnatural” aspects of GMO and utilitarianism offers a mixed bag (p. 159). He doesn’t seem to have a problem using social contract theory to indicate fairness in animal rights for domesticated animals (p. 161), but Thompson points out the violation of religious values regarding Islamic law teaching against pets and zoos because it is unnatural (p. 161), but notes that humans are naturally omnivorous so maybe animal rights proscriptions against eating meat are in error (p. 162).
Thompson’s conclusions were succinct. Natural law would be useful if everyone accepted the universal (p. 226); utilitarianism would be fine if life were only a matter of assessment and there was general agreement upon the perspectives of assessment (p. 227); Kant’s ideology might work if we could get out of our minds the fact that we cannot legislate for everyone’s well-being nor assert universal behavior (p. 227); and personal development might be a useful tool were it not for the egocentric nature within most of humanity (p. 228). He then goes on to ask if there really can be an evolution in ethical thought. He observes that it cannot be proven by empirical assessment and then, leaves most everything in the ambiguity of creative living.

[Sahrona Harahap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ethics
Dalam buku ini banyak hal yang mengajarkan saya tentang etika, makna setiap tulisan di buku ini sangat mudah untuk dipahami serta setiap pembahasan penulis memberikan contoh, sehingga pembaca mudah untuk memahami.

Ada beberapa isi dari buku ini yang ingin saya simpulkan yaitu etika bagian dari moral, bicara tentang etika sama halnya kita bahas mengenai kehidupan, kepribadian, dilema, kematian, ekonomi, pilihan serta konsekuensi.

Etika adalah masalah kebebasan, dalam pengertian ini penulis memberikan pernyataan ketika kita tidak bebes melakukan sesuatu, kita tidak bisa melakukan secara moral dan tanggung jawab atas tindakan tersebut. ada tiga tindakan moral berdasarkan pengamatan penulis yaitu: (1) Moral yaitu mencerminkan nilai-nilai seseorang dan masyarakat, (2) Immoral yaitu hal-hal yang bertentangan dengan seseorang dan masyarakat (3) Amoral yaitu suatu hal yang tidak mencerminkan pilihan berdasarkan nilai/ norma sosial.
contohnya: Terlihat di pada masyarakat yang memiliki perbedaan dalam keyakinan, di sebuah restoran bisa saja orang muslim memilih makanan daging, namun tidak sembarang daging yang akan dipilih, dan akan menghindari daging babi, beda halnya dengan keyakinan masyarakat lainnya, begitupun dengan masyarakat yang memilih makanan vegatarian dan menjauhi makanan daging, keranan keyakinannya bahwa daging merupakan simbol yang harus di kekuasaan yang harus di jaga.

Pertanyaannya apa manfaat etika? ada dua manfaat etika secara umum, pertama untuk menghargai pilihan orang lain dan yang kedua yaitu kesadaran akan nilai-nilai sosial yang telah di sepakati.

Etika juga berkaitan dengan integritas. maksudnya dalam integritas seseorang bisa di lihat dari kedewasaan, dimana kedewasaan adalah tentang bagaimana seseorang mampu mengambil tanggung jawab untuk diri sendiri, dan bisa mengambil keputusan yang rasional yang mencerminkan nilai-nilai pribadi serta mampu menghadapi konsekuensi atas pilihan.

Artinya etika sama dengan tanggung jawab, sehingga etika bisa disebutkan hak-hak yang dimiliki oleh seseorang yang bisa diterima oleh diri sendiri dan masyarakat pada umumnya.

Etika juga disebut sebagai seni dalam hidup, ibaratkan sebuah karya seni atau biasa disebutkan sebagai sesuatu yang diciptakan melalui inspirasi, intuisi dan keseimbangan dalam menggunakan alat dan bahan secara bijaksana mulai dari kanvas, cat dll. Melalui seni seseorang bisa mengungkapkan sesuatu untuk mengekspresikan nilai-nilai atau harapan yang di inginkan.

Tulisan ini merupakan intisari dari buku Etika, hal-hal yang tertulis belum semuanya tertuliskan, karena menurut saya pada setiap pembahasan memiliki makna dan isi yang berbeda,

Terimakasih

[William Schram · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book introduces ethical ideas and standards from different thinkers through the ages. It doesn't exactly tell you what to think but it does ask pointed questions to get you thinking about the issues. Since it condenses the thinking of multiple thinkers, it isn't that long so it also doesn't really get too deep. This book makes a good starting point to learn ethics and about different philosophers like Nietzsche and Hobbes.

[Toby Philpott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Straightforward and Useful Introduction

I wanted a straightforward and relatively simple introduction to the subject of ethics. This delivered. Wasn’t too impressed though that the only religion which had a negative comment was Judaism and so took a star off. “Virtue signalling” and ignoring Judaism’s origins isn’t particularly welcome for me.

Otherwise, a good place to start.

[Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

relatable overview of ethics

Thompson provides a fairly comprehensive overview of ethics in language that is approachable to everyone. His examples rarely define what is ethical, but provide questions for you to think about to determine that yourself.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to Ethics. Nicely broken down with real-life examples.

[Stuart Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overview of Ethics. Does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Johan Radzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buku yang menerangkan - dengan ringkas - kepada kita apa itu Natural Law, apa itu Utilitarianisme, categorical imperative gagasan Kant dan lain-lain yang bersangkut-paut soal etika dan moral. Bagus. Kita dapat memahami tentang pilihan-pilihan moral manusia yang sentiasa berinteraksi dengan sekelilingnya - sesama manusia, haiwan, alam, media, perubatan, politik, dll.

Buku ini bagus untuk budak yang baru hendak bertatih ke alam perbincangan etika dan moral. Penulisnya juga menghubungkan soal-soal rumit ini dengan isu-isu semasa - menjadikan ia bersuara lebih semasa.

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

For the purposes of providing one with a broad and shallow understanding of various ideas and concepts in Ethics, I believe it to be an effective book. I found some of it a bit disjointed and unclear. The explanation of rule and act utilitarianism was confusing and I had to go to secondary sources to grasp the concepts. I didn't care much for the sections on religion though I suppose they have their proper place in ethics. I would have preferred a marginalized outline of religious concepts, but in general I enjoyed the book.

[Sharlene · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book just to help with a paper for school. I did however enjoy what I read which got me a little more interested in the class.