What do you think?
Rate this book
Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics
Outlining the distinctive elements of Christian ethics, Moral Choices is the standard text for college ethics courses. Moral questions are at the core of life's most vital issues. But today, we see a breaking down of humanity’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong. After describing a seven-step procedure for thinking through ethical dilemmas, author Scott Rae uses case studies to address some of today's most challenging ethical and social issues. He guides students in thinking critically and biblically about issues, This book also introduces other ethical systems and their key historical proponents, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant. With its unique union of theory and application and its well-organized, easy-to-use design, the fourth edition of Moral Choices also offers extensive updates, revisions, and three brand new chapters all designed to help students develop a sound and current basis for making ethical decisions in today's complex postmodern culture.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1995
179 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
About the author
Scott B. Rae
30 books8 followersSCOTT RAE, Ph.D., is professor of Christian ethics and chair of the philosophy of religion and ethics department at Talbot School of Theology. He's written six books, including Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics and Beyond Integrity: a Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
March 23, 2022
This is a great introduction to ethics from a Christian Worldview. I think this book accomplished what it set out to do to the best its ability, though many think it is lacking. It is an "introduction to ethics", not a comprehensive study of ethics.
Rae did a great job in providing the many views on his topics, and bringing biblical ideas to each of these views. I would recommend this book to anyone just getting into ethics!
Rae did a great job in providing the many views on his topics, and bringing biblical ideas to each of these views. I would recommend this book to anyone just getting into ethics!
January 11, 2008
Moral Choices is a decent introduction to ethics. The author, I think, leaves out much that should be included in an introduction to ethics. Perhaps too much was attempted in such a short space? Rae tackles such topics as Christian ethics, history of ethics, disparate ethical systems, and ethical decision making - and this in just under half the book! The second half of the book isn't so much an introduction to ethics as it is a hands on foray into discussing putative contemporary moral issues vis-à-vis applying some of the theoretical insights gained in the first half of the book. That is, the second half of the book is a course in applied ethics. Thus like bird shot, the spread is decent but the penetration is weak.
Rae, like many of his colleagues (both current and former) at Talbot, is a Thomist (as he is also in his view of body and soul, cf. Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics by Moreland and Rae, IVP, 2000). This should provide the attentive reader of this review (if there are any - readers, not attentive readers, that is!) insight into how Rae will handle the contemporary ethical issues. He seems partial to Thomistic Natural Law ethics (and that should be read pejoratively). For example, the law of double effect will be employed in trying to find out how to handle the contemporary ethical issues.
Despite these comments, the book is worth the time spent reading it. There is much to be gleaned from Rae's discussions on the contemporary ethical issues. Rae's specialty is in bio-ethics and medical ethics (he serves as a consultant on a hospital's ethics board). He also makes the interesting (and right, in my opinion) claim that in Christian ethics, character is logically prior to deontology. This is to invoke the long-standing Christian claim that God's commands are fixed by his nature, and thus he cannot arbitrarily will any action as right (say, molesting children for fun). Rae also claims the Christianity is primarily a deontological system, but it is also concerned with character. That is, the Bible seems most concerned with right action, or laws. Depending on how "primarily" is to be understood, I would disagree. I would follow someone like John Frame in his (soon to be released) Doctrine of the Christian Life in that the a Christian ethic will place equal emphasis on norm (deontology), situation (consequences), and subject (this would include character and virtue). But Rae's point was not developed, and so my digression may be relevant or not (and, my digression wasn't developed either!).
At the end of the day, I'd recommend Rae's book. But it definitely should be supplemented by primary sources (his critiques of the secular ethical theories are a bit thin), and other introductory texts.
Rae, like many of his colleagues (both current and former) at Talbot, is a Thomist (as he is also in his view of body and soul, cf. Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics by Moreland and Rae, IVP, 2000). This should provide the attentive reader of this review (if there are any - readers, not attentive readers, that is!) insight into how Rae will handle the contemporary ethical issues. He seems partial to Thomistic Natural Law ethics (and that should be read pejoratively). For example, the law of double effect will be employed in trying to find out how to handle the contemporary ethical issues.
Despite these comments, the book is worth the time spent reading it. There is much to be gleaned from Rae's discussions on the contemporary ethical issues. Rae's specialty is in bio-ethics and medical ethics (he serves as a consultant on a hospital's ethics board). He also makes the interesting (and right, in my opinion) claim that in Christian ethics, character is logically prior to deontology. This is to invoke the long-standing Christian claim that God's commands are fixed by his nature, and thus he cannot arbitrarily will any action as right (say, molesting children for fun). Rae also claims the Christianity is primarily a deontological system, but it is also concerned with character. That is, the Bible seems most concerned with right action, or laws. Depending on how "primarily" is to be understood, I would disagree. I would follow someone like John Frame in his (soon to be released) Doctrine of the Christian Life in that the a Christian ethic will place equal emphasis on norm (deontology), situation (consequences), and subject (this would include character and virtue). But Rae's point was not developed, and so my digression may be relevant or not (and, my digression wasn't developed either!).
At the end of the day, I'd recommend Rae's book. But it definitely should be supplemented by primary sources (his critiques of the secular ethical theories are a bit thin), and other introductory texts.
August 6, 2022
Overall I thought Rae did a great job threading threading the needle on pretty much every hot button issue of our day. I really like how he gave the history and evolution of each particular issue, even stating specific situations and landmark cases that lead us to present day. This book would be great to have in the library to reference whenever preaching on these particular issues.
March 26, 2018
I read this book for a Masters Degree class I am working on and it's excellent. While it is definitely written from a Christian point of view, the writing is very even handed and Rae explore multiple world views and lines of reasoning, making this a very useful tool for meeting people where they are across a wide spectrum of thought.
May 26, 2020
Great introduction to modern ethical issues from a Christian perspective, including some interesting case studies and historical background. The scope of topics was somewhat limited.
February 13, 2022
A mostly unhelpful introduction to Christian ethics. Its chapters cover the main Christian Conservative "moral" issues that dominate political television: abortion, reproductive technology, cloning and genetic engineering, death penalty, homosexuality and premarital sex, and war. Ethical issues that affect most Christians on a regular basis like money, poverty, the justice system, business ethics, divorce, immigration, and care for the environment get far less attention. The manner in which it deals with issues is sometimes simplistic, with many boiled down to an "either/or" scenario that doesn't acknowledge third ways and creative solutions. Arguments favoring the author's perspective are given authoritatively, while arguments against the author are dismissed. Only a few chapters contain balanced arguments, and little in the book would convince anyone to change their mind on an issue, or even help an unsure person make up their mind, unless that person had thought little about the issue and was easily persuaded.
Some of the lowlights:
* In the "Making Ethical Decisions" section (and much of the rest of the book), all the hypothetical examples involve the reader being a powerful, successful person with authority over others. Is the implication that people without positions of authority don't make important ethical decisions too, or just that they wouldn't be reading the book?
* The first example involves a Hispanic, homosexual, HIV-positive man on welfare who has gunshot wounds to the stomach and who you can "reasonably assume" is a gang member. Seriously, that's the scenario. The author suggests some people would say that this is just a case of "reaping what one sows".
* Arguments are inconsistent. In the abortion, cloning, and euthanasia chapters, even the possiblity that an innocent human life might be taken is reason enough to never do the procedure. The euthanasia chapter states, "Scripture is clear that such matters belong exclusively to God--that is, there are some prerogatives in life that are only God's, the direct taking of life being one of them." But in the death penalty and war chapters, taking life is suddenly okay, and the chance that innocent lives will be taken is no longer a deciding factor - in the war chapter, the accidental taking of innocent life isn't even considered. Another example is the death penalty chapter - the fact that the crime rate is "much lower in countries with Islamic law" is taken as evidence that harsh punishments may be a good deterrent, but the fact that the murder rate is lower in European countries that have abolished the death penalty is considered irrelevant because "the murder rate is very complex and may be affected by factors other than the deterrent."
* Irrelevant arguments are selectively important. In the reproductive technology chapter, the command to "leave" in Genesis 2:24 is taken to mean that married couples can't live with their extended families, which is completely irrelevant to the chapter and feels like a random attack on the extended family living situations typical in many non-American cultures. Also, it is an interpretation that would be ridiculous in the Hebrew culture. In the euthanasia chapter, one main argument is "Prohibition of Active Euthanasia Will Keep the Law Out of the Medical Setting". Not only does that not make sense, it defies the author's abortion, reproductive technology, and cloning arugments.
* The Bible is used poorly in other places too. "A time to die" in Ecclesiastes 3:2 is taken in the euthanasia chapter to mean that that time to die is appointed by God and no one has the right to decide it themselves, but "A time to be born" in the same verse is ignored in the reproductive technology chapter. Surrogate parenthood and the use of donor sperm or eggs is considered "outside the creation norm" because they're not covered in Genesis 1-2, but genetic engineering and other reproductive technology is considered to be within the creation norm.
* Unsupportable statements are common, like "In the pre-Civil War South, slavery clearly benefitted more people than it harmed", "Scripture looks skeptically on any reproductive intervention that goes outside the married couple for genetic material", and "Multiculturalism, that is, sensitivity to different cultures...moves one strongly in the direction of being a relativist."
However, the author did go to the trouble of summing up the history of ethics and major ethical systems, and some of the chapters are reasonably well balanced, so I couldn't give it just one star. But I wanted to for most of the book.
Some of the lowlights:
* In the "Making Ethical Decisions" section (and much of the rest of the book), all the hypothetical examples involve the reader being a powerful, successful person with authority over others. Is the implication that people without positions of authority don't make important ethical decisions too, or just that they wouldn't be reading the book?
* The first example involves a Hispanic, homosexual, HIV-positive man on welfare who has gunshot wounds to the stomach and who you can "reasonably assume" is a gang member. Seriously, that's the scenario. The author suggests some people would say that this is just a case of "reaping what one sows".
* Arguments are inconsistent. In the abortion, cloning, and euthanasia chapters, even the possiblity that an innocent human life might be taken is reason enough to never do the procedure. The euthanasia chapter states, "Scripture is clear that such matters belong exclusively to God--that is, there are some prerogatives in life that are only God's, the direct taking of life being one of them." But in the death penalty and war chapters, taking life is suddenly okay, and the chance that innocent lives will be taken is no longer a deciding factor - in the war chapter, the accidental taking of innocent life isn't even considered. Another example is the death penalty chapter - the fact that the crime rate is "much lower in countries with Islamic law" is taken as evidence that harsh punishments may be a good deterrent, but the fact that the murder rate is lower in European countries that have abolished the death penalty is considered irrelevant because "the murder rate is very complex and may be affected by factors other than the deterrent."
* Irrelevant arguments are selectively important. In the reproductive technology chapter, the command to "leave" in Genesis 2:24 is taken to mean that married couples can't live with their extended families, which is completely irrelevant to the chapter and feels like a random attack on the extended family living situations typical in many non-American cultures. Also, it is an interpretation that would be ridiculous in the Hebrew culture. In the euthanasia chapter, one main argument is "Prohibition of Active Euthanasia Will Keep the Law Out of the Medical Setting". Not only does that not make sense, it defies the author's abortion, reproductive technology, and cloning arugments.
* The Bible is used poorly in other places too. "A time to die" in Ecclesiastes 3:2 is taken in the euthanasia chapter to mean that that time to die is appointed by God and no one has the right to decide it themselves, but "A time to be born" in the same verse is ignored in the reproductive technology chapter. Surrogate parenthood and the use of donor sperm or eggs is considered "outside the creation norm" because they're not covered in Genesis 1-2, but genetic engineering and other reproductive technology is considered to be within the creation norm.
* Unsupportable statements are common, like "In the pre-Civil War South, slavery clearly benefitted more people than it harmed", "Scripture looks skeptically on any reproductive intervention that goes outside the married couple for genetic material", and "Multiculturalism, that is, sensitivity to different cultures...moves one strongly in the direction of being a relativist."
However, the author did go to the trouble of summing up the history of ethics and major ethical systems, and some of the chapters are reasonably well balanced, so I couldn't give it just one star. But I wanted to for most of the book.
December 16, 2009
This book was quite good at times. I really enjoyed reading it for my Christian Ethics class at Southeastern.
Of all the books I had to read for school this semester, this was likely the best. I found his explanations and introductions to each subject a great relief. I thought that this book would have been boring but it truly sparked me to desire to read more about ethical issues that we are facing as a country and as people.
He touched on many subjects that I had never really considered that much before (cloning, reproductive technology, etc...) while being true to both sides, in my opinion, on some of the more general ethical issues (abortion, capital punishment, etc...).
It is written from a Christian perspective so you might get some bias there but overall, a good read that helps one to gain a great first start into studying ethics.
Of all the books I had to read for school this semester, this was likely the best. I found his explanations and introductions to each subject a great relief. I thought that this book would have been boring but it truly sparked me to desire to read more about ethical issues that we are facing as a country and as people.
He touched on many subjects that I had never really considered that much before (cloning, reproductive technology, etc...) while being true to both sides, in my opinion, on some of the more general ethical issues (abortion, capital punishment, etc...).
It is written from a Christian perspective so you might get some bias there but overall, a good read that helps one to gain a great first start into studying ethics.
March 12, 2009
A great starter book in Christian ethics. This book touches on several "hot buttons" for today's culture.
January 17, 2013
Deals with all the issues but certainly does not do much to establish a distinctly Christian way of doing ethics.
January 19, 2017
Provides a good overview of topics in applied ethics from a Christian perspective.
May 11, 2020
I enjoyed Rae's brief overview of different ethical approaches, however, I considered his overview of biblical ethics to have far too much conservative evangelical spin. His chapter on making ethical decisions was excellent, and later as he delved into practical moral issues of the time, I appreciated a lot of his reasoning and how he presented different views. What often seemed most problematic is when he tried to use the bible as the grounded for his ethical opinions.
For example, Rae writes that "the timing of one's death belongs to God alone. it is his decision, not any individuals. Hebrew 9:27 says "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" It is clear from the context that the one who has appointed the time for a man to die is God." This appears to be Rae's main reason for opposition to assisted suicide and his opposition against abortion.
Honestly, the logic of this reason seems highly problematic to me. For one, if this is a categorical claim that God has determined when a person is to die, doesn't it follow that whenever and however one dies, that this must have been the time set by God, and that to determine the time, God must determine the means as well?! If Kevorkian put the poison in someone's blood which resulted in their death, then wasn't it, therefore, God's determined time for the poisoned person to die?" And so it would be with every other horrible death, if God truly does set the time for people to die and he isn't directly smiting people, then it means he must use secondary means. Is Rae thinking the only secondary means God has chosen to personally kill people is sickness, accident, and old age? If the answer to this is yes, then it means suicide or killing someone is indeed thwarting God's timing. God wanted to use the bad bugs and someones overactive immune response to do the dirty work in His time or cause some random tree branch to fall on their head to kill them dead. But someone beat God to the punch! But if we are thwarting God's holy will by taking life, is it not equally true that we thus thwart God's will by giving medication that saves a person who would have died if not for the intervention? For if there was no intervention then they would have died, and Rae would say it was all according to God's time! So it necessarily follows that the doctors, therefore, thwarted God's appointed time for a person to die, and are thus equally as guilty as the Kavorkians in violating God's time and prerogative.
On the topic of war, we see just how incredibly troubling it is Rae is allowing the bible to inform his ethics. He reasons that due to the commands for Israel to engage in aggressive wars--to massacre every man, women, child, infant, proves there is thus "nothing intrinsically immoral about war." Though, Rae than states Israel was a theocracy—one nation under God, and no other nation can claim this. So as Israel's King he can command his subjects to commit genocide and they must obey--murdering innocent women and children and infants being God's subjects, but today, we cannot claim God's authorization to annihilate those we hate and massacre the innocent. Rae, wanting to protect his bible, must justify genocide, and thus engages in a disturbing sort of moral relativism here. It is disturbing that his commitment to conservative evangelicalism means, he as a Christian ethicist, he must defend the massacre of the innocent morally right in the context of theocracy, he must call black white, and evil good.
Rae suggests a truly Christian ethic needs to be grounded in the bible, and it would appear he attempts to do this by a synthesis of biblical material from an overtly Evangelical perspective (that filters a lot out and interprets what remains to fit current evangelical values). However, I think a reading of the bible leaves us in an ethical quagmire, for example, take lying, the book of Hebrews praises the midwives for deceiving Pharaoh... do we allow this or "though shalt not lie" to be more distinctly Christian? Or suppose we toss in God telling Samual to lie to Saul, or the member of the heavenly council that volunteered to lie to a king for God's sake? If we synthesize all this together, is the most distinctively Christian guideline "don't lie, unless the end (such as saving a life, or being judgment upon someone) justifies the means (lying), or if God commands you to lie, then you must lie... for loyalty to God transcends all moral ideals"?
I see I see plenty of examples of what Rae called 'ethical voluntarism' in the bible. Should the Divine Command view of ethics thus be the normative Christian Ethic drawn from the bible? That all that matters is absolute obedience to God who is often presented as above good and evil: If God tells you to take your son and offer him a burnt sacrifice, the morally 'right' thing to do is obey without question. If God tells you to slaughter multitudes of children and infants for a crime their ancestors committed 400 years ago, you must obey quickly and be thorough in the grizzly deed or else be judged by God for disobedience. So, in this sense nothing is wrong if God tells you to do it. So, in the ethical dilemmas that Rae presented, the more distinctively Christian thing to do would be to pray and ask God; if God tells you to lie, cheat, steal and kill, then it is a go--for it would be immoral not to obey. Speaking of killing, with the "Thou shalt not murder," how is this synthesized with the persistent theme in the OT of the innocent being killed for the sins of their others? Aken's family is burned with him for his sin; entire people groups are condemned for their ancestor's sins; David's baby is killed for his sin; 70,000 people are killed because he takes a census; as punishment for David's sin, his daughters and concubines are raped; almost every bad king of Israel isn't punished personally, but is told his children and the entire family line would be slaughtered because of his sin.... do we negate a consistent theme of the innocent being punished for other peoples sins--a persistent thread throughout Old Testament--by using Ezekial 18? I am happy to do so, I suppose if we make the NT more normative and authoritative, maybe siding with Ezekial 18 would be the more distinctively Christian thing to do. All in all, there are so many value judgments that must be made, we all have to pick and chose from the biblical smogasboard. There is no escaping this reality.
I will finish on a more positive note. I thought Rae's treatment of the topic of wealth was excellent. I really appreciated how he pointed out the economic and political context of the time--how it was a period when the majority of the wealthy were not so because they worked hard and earned it, but rather it was at the expense of others or because they were among the few privileged, in a society rigged to keep people in their place. In Jesus' day it was a zero-sum game, unlike what it like in a market society where wealth is created, and to get rich doesn't mean to do so at other people's loss. All that to say, Rae shows many of the extremely harsh statements against wealth in the NT are set in this context. There is a contrast between wealth wrongfully gained. Now still, wealth rightfully earned cannot simply be hoarded from the NT perspective, instead, we are under the obligation to love others.
For example, Rae writes that "the timing of one's death belongs to God alone. it is his decision, not any individuals. Hebrew 9:27 says "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" It is clear from the context that the one who has appointed the time for a man to die is God." This appears to be Rae's main reason for opposition to assisted suicide and his opposition against abortion.
Honestly, the logic of this reason seems highly problematic to me. For one, if this is a categorical claim that God has determined when a person is to die, doesn't it follow that whenever and however one dies, that this must have been the time set by God, and that to determine the time, God must determine the means as well?! If Kevorkian put the poison in someone's blood which resulted in their death, then wasn't it, therefore, God's determined time for the poisoned person to die?" And so it would be with every other horrible death, if God truly does set the time for people to die and he isn't directly smiting people, then it means he must use secondary means. Is Rae thinking the only secondary means God has chosen to personally kill people is sickness, accident, and old age? If the answer to this is yes, then it means suicide or killing someone is indeed thwarting God's timing. God wanted to use the bad bugs and someones overactive immune response to do the dirty work in His time or cause some random tree branch to fall on their head to kill them dead. But someone beat God to the punch! But if we are thwarting God's holy will by taking life, is it not equally true that we thus thwart God's will by giving medication that saves a person who would have died if not for the intervention? For if there was no intervention then they would have died, and Rae would say it was all according to God's time! So it necessarily follows that the doctors, therefore, thwarted God's appointed time for a person to die, and are thus equally as guilty as the Kavorkians in violating God's time and prerogative.
On the topic of war, we see just how incredibly troubling it is Rae is allowing the bible to inform his ethics. He reasons that due to the commands for Israel to engage in aggressive wars--to massacre every man, women, child, infant, proves there is thus "nothing intrinsically immoral about war." Though, Rae than states Israel was a theocracy—one nation under God, and no other nation can claim this. So as Israel's King he can command his subjects to commit genocide and they must obey--murdering innocent women and children and infants being God's subjects, but today, we cannot claim God's authorization to annihilate those we hate and massacre the innocent. Rae, wanting to protect his bible, must justify genocide, and thus engages in a disturbing sort of moral relativism here. It is disturbing that his commitment to conservative evangelicalism means, he as a Christian ethicist, he must defend the massacre of the innocent morally right in the context of theocracy, he must call black white, and evil good.
Rae suggests a truly Christian ethic needs to be grounded in the bible, and it would appear he attempts to do this by a synthesis of biblical material from an overtly Evangelical perspective (that filters a lot out and interprets what remains to fit current evangelical values). However, I think a reading of the bible leaves us in an ethical quagmire, for example, take lying, the book of Hebrews praises the midwives for deceiving Pharaoh... do we allow this or "though shalt not lie" to be more distinctly Christian? Or suppose we toss in God telling Samual to lie to Saul, or the member of the heavenly council that volunteered to lie to a king for God's sake? If we synthesize all this together, is the most distinctively Christian guideline "don't lie, unless the end (such as saving a life, or being judgment upon someone) justifies the means (lying), or if God commands you to lie, then you must lie... for loyalty to God transcends all moral ideals"?
I see I see plenty of examples of what Rae called 'ethical voluntarism' in the bible. Should the Divine Command view of ethics thus be the normative Christian Ethic drawn from the bible? That all that matters is absolute obedience to God who is often presented as above good and evil: If God tells you to take your son and offer him a burnt sacrifice, the morally 'right' thing to do is obey without question. If God tells you to slaughter multitudes of children and infants for a crime their ancestors committed 400 years ago, you must obey quickly and be thorough in the grizzly deed or else be judged by God for disobedience. So, in this sense nothing is wrong if God tells you to do it. So, in the ethical dilemmas that Rae presented, the more distinctively Christian thing to do would be to pray and ask God; if God tells you to lie, cheat, steal and kill, then it is a go--for it would be immoral not to obey. Speaking of killing, with the "Thou shalt not murder," how is this synthesized with the persistent theme in the OT of the innocent being killed for the sins of their others? Aken's family is burned with him for his sin; entire people groups are condemned for their ancestor's sins; David's baby is killed for his sin; 70,000 people are killed because he takes a census; as punishment for David's sin, his daughters and concubines are raped; almost every bad king of Israel isn't punished personally, but is told his children and the entire family line would be slaughtered because of his sin.... do we negate a consistent theme of the innocent being punished for other peoples sins--a persistent thread throughout Old Testament--by using Ezekial 18? I am happy to do so, I suppose if we make the NT more normative and authoritative, maybe siding with Ezekial 18 would be the more distinctively Christian thing to do. All in all, there are so many value judgments that must be made, we all have to pick and chose from the biblical smogasboard. There is no escaping this reality.
I will finish on a more positive note. I thought Rae's treatment of the topic of wealth was excellent. I really appreciated how he pointed out the economic and political context of the time--how it was a period when the majority of the wealthy were not so because they worked hard and earned it, but rather it was at the expense of others or because they were among the few privileged, in a society rigged to keep people in their place. In Jesus' day it was a zero-sum game, unlike what it like in a market society where wealth is created, and to get rich doesn't mean to do so at other people's loss. All that to say, Rae shows many of the extremely harsh statements against wealth in the NT are set in this context. There is a contrast between wealth wrongfully gained. Now still, wealth rightfully earned cannot simply be hoarded from the NT perspective, instead, we are under the obligation to love others.
January 18, 2018
Moral Choices is a fair introduction to ethics written from the perspective of the Christian worldview. The way I understood the text was primarily as an introduction to various topics in the field of ethics and the general positions and arguments associated with them. I do not believe the author intended any discussion to be exhaustive or to provide the most in-depth critical assessment of any particular view. Nevertheless it is clear where he lands on most of the issues.
As a positive, I think the author succeeded in surveying the landscape of the dialogue within the field of ethics. There are undoubtedly those who will disagree with some of the assessments he makes, but I think even these people will largely accept the general descriptions he provides of the various positions, as well as his descriptions of the major arguments on display. Additionally, I appreciated the inclusion of discussions about court cases, especially in the chapters about Bioethics. Finally, this was not a purely intellectual book, but instead the areas of application were evident on every page.
That being said, I ultimately expected more depth than the book provided. Several discussions in each chapter seemed to be too short to do justice to the given topic. Additionally, the author would have done well to have defended some of his assumptions, especially for significant topics such as abortion. Ultimately, I think most readers would need to follow up this book with others in order to be effective at discussing most of the topics addressed.
Despite some lack of depth, this is a great starting point for those looking to begin a study of ethics, especially from a Christian perspective.
As a positive, I think the author succeeded in surveying the landscape of the dialogue within the field of ethics. There are undoubtedly those who will disagree with some of the assessments he makes, but I think even these people will largely accept the general descriptions he provides of the various positions, as well as his descriptions of the major arguments on display. Additionally, I appreciated the inclusion of discussions about court cases, especially in the chapters about Bioethics. Finally, this was not a purely intellectual book, but instead the areas of application were evident on every page.
That being said, I ultimately expected more depth than the book provided. Several discussions in each chapter seemed to be too short to do justice to the given topic. Additionally, the author would have done well to have defended some of his assumptions, especially for significant topics such as abortion. Ultimately, I think most readers would need to follow up this book with others in order to be effective at discussing most of the topics addressed.
Despite some lack of depth, this is a great starting point for those looking to begin a study of ethics, especially from a Christian perspective.
October 9, 2019
This is a straight textbook. I read the third edition. I wasn't assigned the whole thing. So, i didn't read the whole thing. I almost gave it 3 stars because I felt some of the arguments were weak. Amongst something I strongly disagreed with. Otherwise, it is quite an engaging read because you deal with many controversial topics. I do appreciate how much of the Bible is incorporated into this textbook.
July 27, 2019
My classmates and I rave about how helpful this book has been for us in our Christian ethics class. Scott B. Rae covers a lot of topic in this book and has been a great guide in personal conversations with different people, especially as a Christian. It's a great introduction to subjects such as moral reasoning, ethical decisions, abortion, sexual ethics, war, and economics.
October 4, 2020
Great book with really thought provoking questions and answers
This was a textbook in my Christian Ethics class. It gives explanations and arguments for and against for a variety of topics from abortion, to euthanasia, to war. Definitely worth the read.
This was a textbook in my Christian Ethics class. It gives explanations and arguments for and against for a variety of topics from abortion, to euthanasia, to war. Definitely worth the read.
June 29, 2019
A painfully biased collection of anecdotes exulting the virtues of living under the oppressive thumb of traditional Christian values.
October 4, 2019
This book really challenges Christians to think about their values vs their emotions. I highly recommend.
October 8, 2019
3.5 stars
November 6, 2019
Balanced reading! Since ethics deals heavily on the philosophical tone to it :)
October 16, 2022
Good starting point for jumping off into more study. Bit too American centric for my tastes.
January 20, 2023
In my opinion, a fair and charitable understanding of Christian ethics. This book allows for diversity of thought while exploring several ethical dilemmas in an honest manner.
Read
March 31, 2023It wasn't bad, but I'm glad I'm done reading it.
April 6, 2023
Some really good insights, but also too prescriptive and rigid of Christian Ethics in areas where I think Christians can respectfully disagree/wrestle with
November 26, 2024
A good overview of the major issues.
December 3, 2024
Not aware of his own biases to handle this topic well.
March 25, 2025
VERY expansive. But 'twas to be expected for an ethics class assigned reading. Beginning had a great layout of where the study of ethics comes form and transitions to applied Christian ethics. After that, each chapter addresses a "hot button" ethical issue. Really appreciated that they present all the facts and then let you form your own opinion. Definitely will be returning to specific chapters in the future as I process such issues/conversations.
April 13, 2021
I found that Scott Rae did an excellent job of introducing many topics. The ones that I knew about already were excellent beginning primers that allows someone with no experience to someone who is more informed on a topic than the average person who knows a little bit.
It's easily readable and is very fair to the positions that he does not agree with (if he even shows his hand, in some cases)
Edit: Had to read it again for class again. I would probably give it 3.5 stars, but I can't give half stars, so I'm giving it 3 instead.
It's easily readable and is very fair to the positions that he does not agree with (if he even shows his hand, in some cases)
Edit: Had to read it again for class again. I would probably give it 3.5 stars, but I can't give half stars, so I'm giving it 3 instead.
July 6, 2021
3 stars [Ethics]
Rae's work provides almost exhaustive points-of-view on eight to thirteen of today's more pressing topics. Before this, he explains the eight primary ethical schools, and then provides a neutral framework for assessing ethical issues. It is a great read for the beginning learner of Ethics.
Although he is careful not to espouse his own opinion--instead offering the views of the many in ordered contrasts--it is tinged with the fallacy of Graded Absolutism.
Rae's work provides almost exhaustive points-of-view on eight to thirteen of today's more pressing topics. Before this, he explains the eight primary ethical schools, and then provides a neutral framework for assessing ethical issues. It is a great read for the beginning learner of Ethics.
Although he is careful not to espouse his own opinion--instead offering the views of the many in ordered contrasts--it is tinged with the fallacy of Graded Absolutism.
December 2, 2018
It this book's coverage of historical theories of ethics was a little more comprehensive I would give it five stars. I also think it would benefit from a more focused approach to the topic of social justice. Nevertheless, it is the best book I know of for discussions of applied ethics in the college classroom.
June 6, 2007
I book that helps a Christian think through ethically issues more reasonably and biblically. It covers all your hot topics: abortion, euthansia, reproduction, homosexuality, legislating morality, etc.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews