What do you think?
Rate this book
Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy
Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction
A Contemporary Introduction introduces the issues and controversies of contemporary moral philosophy. It gets students to struggle with the big questions of morality while it also relates these questions to practical issues, especially racism, global warming, moral education, and abortion. Providing a practical method for thinking about moral issues—a method based largely on the golden rule—it is written simply and clearly throughout. College students who are new to philosophy or who have already taken an introductory-level course will benefit from its use.
Key
Serves as either the sole textbook for a lower-level introduction to ethics/moral philosophy course or a supplementary text for a more advanced undergraduate ethics course.Provides clear, direct writing throughout, making each chapter easily accessible for an engaged undergraduate student.Offers a philosophically rigorous presentation of the golden rule.Includes helpful study aids, bolded technical terms; boxes for key ideas; summaries, study questions, and suggested readings for each chapter; and a comprehensive glossary/index at the back of the book.Key Additions to the Third
Each chapter now offers additional, optional sections on more advanced topics for students wishing to dig deeper into the material (advanced topics Kohlberg’s moral psychology, whether morality is gendered, types of relativism, early Greek ethics, Hume, and the prisoner’s dilemma).Other improvements better chapter organization, clearer explanations, improved examples, new names for key arguments, and a better Kindle version.An updated and improved EthiCola instructional program (with a score-processing program, teacher’s manual, and class slides), which can be downloaded from the web for free (from www.harrycola.com/ec or www.harryhiker.com/ec).
Key
Serves as either the sole textbook for a lower-level introduction to ethics/moral philosophy course or a supplementary text for a more advanced undergraduate ethics course.Provides clear, direct writing throughout, making each chapter easily accessible for an engaged undergraduate student.Offers a philosophically rigorous presentation of the golden rule.Includes helpful study aids, bolded technical terms; boxes for key ideas; summaries, study questions, and suggested readings for each chapter; and a comprehensive glossary/index at the back of the book.Key Additions to the Third
Each chapter now offers additional, optional sections on more advanced topics for students wishing to dig deeper into the material (advanced topics Kohlberg’s moral psychology, whether morality is gendered, types of relativism, early Greek ethics, Hume, and the prisoner’s dilemma).Other improvements better chapter organization, clearer explanations, improved examples, new names for key arguments, and a better Kindle version.An updated and improved EthiCola instructional program (with a score-processing program, teacher’s manual, and class slides), which can be downloaded from the web for free (from www.harrycola.com/ec or www.harryhiker.com/ec).
250 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1385
20 people are currently reading
278 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 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 5, 2018
A highly biased book. It claims to be neutral. But most of the book, it spends time on arguing for "the golden rule". Most manifestly, he mentions "Kohlberg's stages of moral development" (which is highly outdated) But with a twist. Let's first see what his stages are according to wikipedia:
"Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)"
let's now see them according to Gesler:
"1. Punishment/obedience: "bad" is what brings punishment
2. Rewards: "Good" is what brings what you want.
3. Parental approval: "Good" Is what pleases Mommy and Daddy.
4. Social approval: "Good" is what is socially approved.
5. Utilitarian: "Good" is what promotes society's welfare
6. Impartial Principles: "good" is what expresses consistency, justice, and equal dignity act only as you're willing that anyone act in the same situation, regardless of where you imagine yourself in that situation."
Not very similar, right? I don't even mean the wording. Please take a look at the explanation for the 5th and 6th stages:
"In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".[8] This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.
In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[15] Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg's first five stages through data analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of Kohlberg's sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a concrete stage in moral development."
The author claims to do a very analytical criticism of different views on ethics. But he fails to not resort to using unintuitive implications against the original idea. Even though he identifies them as "difficult bullets to swallow" he still uses them against a view. His uses of terms such as absolutism and objectivism are highly confusing and it doesn't conform to the standard usages.
I actually started reading the book, with an extremely optimistic attitude. But it managed to make me hate it.
The one thing that I can say is impressive about this book is it's beautifully structured content. It's organized as a textbook, broken down into parts, chapters, sub-chapter and standardized headings. But it fails to make much sense after that.
"Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)"
let's now see them according to Gesler:
"1. Punishment/obedience: "bad" is what brings punishment
2. Rewards: "Good" is what brings what you want.
3. Parental approval: "Good" Is what pleases Mommy and Daddy.
4. Social approval: "Good" is what is socially approved.
5. Utilitarian: "Good" is what promotes society's welfare
6. Impartial Principles: "good" is what expresses consistency, justice, and equal dignity act only as you're willing that anyone act in the same situation, regardless of where you imagine yourself in that situation."
Not very similar, right? I don't even mean the wording. Please take a look at the explanation for the 5th and 6th stages:
"In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".[8] This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.
In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[15] Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg's first five stages through data analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of Kohlberg's sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a concrete stage in moral development."
The author claims to do a very analytical criticism of different views on ethics. But he fails to not resort to using unintuitive implications against the original idea. Even though he identifies them as "difficult bullets to swallow" he still uses them against a view. His uses of terms such as absolutism and objectivism are highly confusing and it doesn't conform to the standard usages.
I actually started reading the book, with an extremely optimistic attitude. But it managed to make me hate it.
The one thing that I can say is impressive about this book is it's beautifully structured content. It's organized as a textbook, broken down into parts, chapters, sub-chapter and standardized headings. But it fails to make much sense after that.
June 11, 2020
به نظرم کتاب فلسفه اخلاق ریچلز برای سروکله زدن با فلسفه اخلاق کتاب بهتری بود. این کتاب خیلی ابتدایی و ساده بود و زیاد درگیرم نکرد. کلا هم احساس میکنم با رویکردی که ملکیان نسبت به اخلاق داره زیاد همدل نیستم. به نظرم کمی فلسفهٔ اخلاق رو نزدیک میکنه به روانشناسی و این چیزایی که تو خودیاری و اینا میگن. ترجمهش هم بد نبود ولی ای کاش توی چاپ پنجم و ویراست دوم میدادن یکی نمونهخوانی میکرد تا متن کمی تمیزتر باشه. همین.
January 15, 2010
کتاب بسیار مناسب و زیبا برای یک شروع خوب آشنایی با فلسفه اخلاق و حتی فلسفه تحلیلی به طور کلی این کتاب و کتاب فلسفه اخلاق جیمز ریچلز با ترجمه آرش اخگری کتاب های خوب و زیبا و مناسبی هستند برای مطالعه و اشنایی با فلسفه اخلاق تحلیلی
February 13, 2021
Useless. Author introduces his own positions into his account so often, the reader is left with little sense that his accounts of any of the others are reliable. The only ethics course one could teach with this book is his.
January 12, 2023
I'm keeping the "be consistent, be informed, be imaginative" rule.
April 17, 2025
Boring class
December 21, 2017
This is great summary of different views on moral philosophy. It explains almost all views including: Social relativism, subjectivism, ideal observer view, emotivism, intiutionism, prescriptivism. The second part of the book deals with normative ethics explaining consenquentalism and nonconsenquentalism. I am not philosophy student but this book was very understandable to me. I was able to comprehend almost everything and it helped me a lot to understand better some deep truths.
December 12, 2021
A decent introduction to contemporary ethical theory. I appreciated Gensler's formulation and defense of the Golden Rule, which I expect functions to stave off the angst and moral skepticism to which younger students might succumb in the face of a range of ethical options each with their own problems. (And the GR and his case for it are basically correct imo.)
June 13, 2024
(This is for the 3rd edition)
If you’re looking for a somewhat comprehensive contemporary introduction to normative ethics, don’t buy this book. As other comments have noted the author promotes his own views quite often, which is nothing bad in itself. But when the largest section of the book is an explication of his own favorite principle: ‘The Golden Rule’ instead of theories and objections to normative ethics, it’s a problem.
You get a little metaethics in the beginning, a lot of GR in the middle and sadly, I think, a rushed section of a few normative theories at the end. Coupled with one applied ethics problem.
It seems that Gensler violated his own GR principle. Because the question for him is: “If you bought a ‘Ethics’ textbook hoping to find a relatively deep dive of wide range of normative theories, would you want the majority of the book be tainted with the author’s own peculiar views?”
I rated it 3 stars still because the arguments across the board are nonetheless solid.
If you’re looking for a somewhat comprehensive contemporary introduction to normative ethics, don’t buy this book. As other comments have noted the author promotes his own views quite often, which is nothing bad in itself. But when the largest section of the book is an explication of his own favorite principle: ‘The Golden Rule’ instead of theories and objections to normative ethics, it’s a problem.
You get a little metaethics in the beginning, a lot of GR in the middle and sadly, I think, a rushed section of a few normative theories at the end. Coupled with one applied ethics problem.
It seems that Gensler violated his own GR principle. Because the question for him is: “If you bought a ‘Ethics’ textbook hoping to find a relatively deep dive of wide range of normative theories, would you want the majority of the book be tainted with the author’s own peculiar views?”
I rated it 3 stars still because the arguments across the board are nonetheless solid.
October 7, 2025
If you are looking for a normative ethics textbook, I would strongly suggest that you find another book to read (Try the Cambridge Elements on ethics or the Oxford Handbook to ethical theory.) This is largely for two reasons. First, the book doesn't give a good overview of competing ethical views. Currently, the landscape of normative ethics is consequentialism, deontology, and pluralism. Breaking it down further, there are a many different views of consequentialism (act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, etc) and deontology (virtue ethics, Kantianism, contractariansim, contractualism, natural law, etc.) This book only covers a fraction of the views above, which makes this book unsuited for a beginner to appreciate the relevant views.
Second, there is an ever expanding set of questions that are at best tangentially related to the views above, but still belong in normative ethics. Such questions include: is there a moral difference between doing vs. allowing harm? Are actions wrong in virtue of the agent's knowledge and mental states or wrong in virtue of the objective facts? Should the demandingness of some moral theory count against their plausibility? Is there a moral difference between saving vs. letting live? What are the conditions for well-being?
The book covers none of these questions, and this is to the detriment of the reader.
Second, there is an ever expanding set of questions that are at best tangentially related to the views above, but still belong in normative ethics. Such questions include: is there a moral difference between doing vs. allowing harm? Are actions wrong in virtue of the agent's knowledge and mental states or wrong in virtue of the objective facts? Should the demandingness of some moral theory count against their plausibility? Is there a moral difference between saving vs. letting live? What are the conditions for well-being?
The book covers none of these questions, and this is to the detriment of the reader.
September 28, 2009
“رابرت ارينگتن” از دانشگاه ايالتي جورجيا در توصيف اين كتاب مي گويد: “كتابي فوقالعاده كه باعث مي شود دانشجو به جاي آن كه فقط به مطالعه آراء فيلسوفان در باب موضوعات اخلاقي بپردازد، خودش بينديشد. اين كتاب عقايد معقول و غير جزمياي را تقويت مي كند كه مي تواند پاسخي براي پرسشهاي محوري فلسفه اخلاق باشد”. “تامس كارسن” از دانشگاه لايولا شيكاگو نيز مي نويسد: “كتابي كه در انسجام و باريك بيني بي سابقه است. بهترين و مهترين در سنامه اي كه من تاكنون درباره موضوعات بنيادي فلسفه اخلاق ديده ام”.
كتاب شامل يك ديباچه، دوازه فصل، يك اصطلاح نامه،كتابشناسي و يك نمايه است.عناوين فصول كتاب عبارتند از:
نسبي نگري فرهنگي،
شخصي انگاري،
فرا طبعيت گرائي،
شهود باوري،
عاطفه گرائي،
توصيهگرائي،
ناپيامدگرائي
فصل تلفيقي پاياني.
كتاب كه انتخاب پسنديده اي براي ترجمه است، داراي طرح جلدي مناسب و صفحه آرائي پاكيزه اي است و خواندن اين كتاب را به كساني كه خواهان مطالعه دقيق فلسفه اخلاق بانگاهي غير جانبدارائه هستند مي توان توصيه نمود.
كتاب شامل يك ديباچه، دوازه فصل، يك اصطلاح نامه،كتابشناسي و يك نمايه است.عناوين فصول كتاب عبارتند از:
نسبي نگري فرهنگي،
شخصي انگاري،
فرا طبعيت گرائي،
شهود باوري،
عاطفه گرائي،
توصيهگرائي،
ناپيامدگرائي
فصل تلفيقي پاياني.
كتاب كه انتخاب پسنديده اي براي ترجمه است، داراي طرح جلدي مناسب و صفحه آرائي پاكيزه اي است و خواندن اين كتاب را به كساني كه خواهان مطالعه دقيق فلسفه اخلاق بانگاهي غير جانبدارائه هستند مي توان توصيه نمود.
August 6, 2023
الكتاب كويس جدا كمدخل وممتاز في عرض المذاهب المختلفة ونقدها الكتاب سهل ولكن مش مبتذل ومحزن في نفس الوقت كا قارئ عربي ان اللغة المدرسية اللي مكتوب بيها الكتاب اصبحت معدومة حاليا في الوطن العربي.
عيوب الكتاب اظن بعض النقاط في النقد للمذاهب كانت هزيلة ولكن بما ان الكتاب مدخل فا اظن دا شيء وارد وايضا الكتاب بيدور حول ازاي نعامل الاخريين ولكنه تعرض بشكل بسيط جدا عن الافعال الي تخص الفرد نفسه وملهاش تأثير على الأخرين.
عيوب الكتاب اظن بعض النقاط في النقد للمذاهب كانت هزيلة ولكن بما ان الكتاب مدخل فا اظن دا شيء وارد وايضا الكتاب بيدور حول ازاي نعامل الاخريين ولكنه تعرض بشكل بسيط جدا عن الافعال الي تخص الفرد نفسه وملهاش تأثير على الأخرين.
March 3, 2015
انتظارات من(و شاید ما به عنوان ملتی که ادعای اخلاق گرایی ان هم از نوع تاریخی دارد !) از اخلاقیات بیش ازین است که در کتاب است. اما خوب است که خوانده شود
September 28, 2018
This is great summary of different views on moral philosophy. It explains almost all views including: Social relativism, subjectivism, ideal observer view, emotivism, intiutionism, prescriptivism. The second part of the book deals with normative ethics explaining consenquentalism and nonconsenquentalism. I am not philosophy student but this book was very understandable to me. I was able to comprehend almost everything and it helped me a lot to understand better some deep truths.
October 15, 2018
This is great summary of different views on moral philosophy. It explains almost all views including: Social relativism, subjectivism, ideal observer view, emotivism, intiutionism, prescriptivism. The second part of the book deals with normative ethics explaining consenquentalism and nonconsenquentalism. I am not philosophy student but this book was very understandable to me. I was able to comprehend almost everything and it helped me a lot to understand better some deep truths.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews