What do you think?
Rate this book
Living Ethics: An Introduction with Readings
Living Ethics: An Introduction with Readings is an ideal all-in-one resource for courses in introduction to ethics and contemporary moral problems. In this hybrid textbook/reader, Russ Shafer-Landau brings moral theory and contemporary moral issues to life with a comprehensive and balanced set of readings, uniquely engaging explanations, and clear analysis of arguments.
The book balances coverage of moral reasoning (in Part 1) with highly relevant contemporary moral problems (in Part 2).
Part 2 also features a rich collection of pedagogical tools to help students understand and think critically about the various contemporary moral issues discussed:
* Just the Facts: Provides students with relevant factual material, offering necessary background for the book's ethical investigations
* Argument Analysis: Reconstructs and critically assesses a battery of arguments on the topics of the chapter
* Essential Concepts: Key terms that are placed in bold on first mention in the text (also available in the glossary)
* Stat Shots: Visual presentations of quantitative data provide additional context for the chapter's subject matter
* Cases for Critical Thinking: Often taken from headlines, these exercises are designed to invite deeper reflection on issues related to the chapter topic
The book balances coverage of moral reasoning (in Part 1) with highly relevant contemporary moral problems (in Part 2).
Part 2 also features a rich collection of pedagogical tools to help students understand and think critically about the various contemporary moral issues discussed:
* Just the Facts: Provides students with relevant factual material, offering necessary background for the book's ethical investigations
* Argument Analysis: Reconstructs and critically assesses a battery of arguments on the topics of the chapter
* Essential Concepts: Key terms that are placed in bold on first mention in the text (also available in the glossary)
* Stat Shots: Visual presentations of quantitative data provide additional context for the chapter's subject matter
* Cases for Critical Thinking: Often taken from headlines, these exercises are designed to invite deeper reflection on issues related to the chapter topic
- GenresPhilosophy
736 pages, Paperback
Published June 29, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
February 14, 2023Morality, as we ordinarily think of it, is like laws, etiquette, or traditions; however, these normative systems are all distinct and are in fact, not the same as morality. For instance, laws allow and prohibit specific actions, but laws do not automatically render actions moral or immoral. Our usual standards of etiquette are different from morality too. While some actions are collectively regarded as good, good manners are simply not the same as morally good conduct. In the same way, certain practices that are accepted in a given society are not always morally acceptable. While there is no unified definition of what morality is, at its core, morality refers to the principles and values of right and wrong. It guides our behaviors and decision-making that affect not only ourselves but also the well-being of others. It also shapes our understanding of other people’s beliefs which may not align always with our own, thereby helping us navigate the complexities of human actions and motivations.
Our morality is tested in our choices, and oftentimes, we find ourselves in situations where there seems to be no escapable route– a moral dilemma. Recalling my own experience of having to oscillate between two very difficult choices was no easy feat, but it allowed me to discover where my moral compass points north. I was in college when I gave birth to my first child and due to a series of unfortunate events, found myself in a single-parenthood situation. A few months after giving birth, I had plans to go back to school and continue where I left off, and leave my child to my parent’s care. On one hand, I had a strong desire to continue with my studies, since to do so would somehow recompense the heartache that I’d caused my parents. On the other hand, my sense of motherly duty was as equally strong, and to fulfill this duty was a moral imperative. Therein lies the moral dilemma: Was it right for me to leave my child who was just an infant at the time to my parents’ care while I pursue my education?
Some may say that my moral responsibility as a parent is to put my child’s welfare first, so staying home to be my child’s sole carer at the very least would fulfill that responsibility. There are also those, the ethical egoists, who would say that it is morally justifiable for me to put my needs first, that is to finish my studies. It is hard to choose where the moral wisdom lies in those two conflicting moral advice because both offer desirable outcomes, but the ethical egoist would claim that my ultimate moral duty is to myself, therefore I should consider myself fundamentally more important than others. This complicates my moral dilemma because whether I decide to go back to school or stay at home, ethical egoism would insist that my decision is and should be, if it is not already, to maximize my personal benefit. On one hand, if I decided to go back to school, I would benefit from having the chance to earn a diploma, pursue further self-advancement, and even shine a sidewise gleam on rebuilding my rocky relationship with my parents and regain their trust, approval, and pride. This would eventually lead to creating a stable future for my child, but the egoist would forbid me from thinking that way because there is absolutely no moral requirement for me to do so. If I should care about my child´s future, the only motivation for doing so would be to benefit myself in the long run.
Realistically speaking, my conscience wouldn’t allow me to focus on myself while my child is left with my parents, and still, the egoist would insist that my terrible guilt is wholly self-interested. If I decided to stop going to school to focus on my motherly duties, an egoist would still say that, deep down, my source of moral duty is to free myself from my private guilts; after all, a clear conscience is a benefit. Whichever of the two paths I take, ethical egoism always seems to assume that both my desire to finish my studies and to be a hands-on mother has an ulterior motive which is to serve my self-interest. I would argue that just because a desire is mine does not mean that the object is only me and my self-interest, because whose desire it is and who the desire is for are two entirely different things. I could have that strong drive to finish my studies and sacrifice being away from my child to secure our future, or I could gladly choose to become a hands-on mother and set aside my education and do that for my own child’s sake. Apparently, egoism misses out on other possible moral motivations – love, for example – could be a genuine source of moral obligation. If I am willing to give a certain degree of self-sacrifice, what is the proof that my desires are purely out of my benefit? Where my direct desire is aimed at the benefit of my child, then isn’t that evidence of love, an act of altruism, and not egoism?
Having discovered that my moral duties align with my desired moral outcomes could perhaps resolve my moral dilemma. However, my moral efficacy would be tested further when confronted by ethical relativism, the view that moral judgments are true or false only relatively to some particular standpoint, and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. According to relativism, we cannot judge our own moral codes as superior or inferior to other people. This subjective morality in relativism opens a lot of room for tolerance where each of us may claim personal autonomy in making decisions based on our moral principles while letting go of expectations that others would fine-tune their moral beliefs for us. While this may sound great, this line of thinking in some way complicates my moral dilemma because this implies that my moral beliefs cannot be wrong, and this seem to cause more harm than good. If relativism is correct, then my moral principles can be based on my emotions, superficial thinking, or ignorance, and I can still be right.
What is more, relativists claim that there are no objective moral truths. This complicates my moral dilemma even more because in order for me to have some kind of moral guidance, an objective moral truth should be offered, but relativists would argue that there is no such thing. Without an objective moral truth, the relativist may argue that there is no absolute right answer to the question of whether I should prioritize my child or myself. Interestingly, while I approach my moral dilemma from a relativist perspective, I am presented with a side of my moral issue with which it can be viewed as a false dichotomy. My moral dilemma seems to be either I go back to school or I am a good mother when really there is a myriad of possible options. And somehow, this is when I would seek the counsel of others– to relativize my outlook and to gain some perspective that may lead to my own enlightenment and moral growth in one way or another.
In conclusion, I have come to realize that the dilemma of whether I should pursue higher education or prioritize child-rearing is a complex moral issue that requires careful consideration. The idea that I must sacrifice my own aspirations for my child, or vice versa, is a narrow and limiting perspective. From an egoist standpoint, I must consider what is in my best interest and what will bring me the most fulfillment. From a relativist perspective, I must understand that every parent's situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. There is no one right answer and the solution that works best for me may not be the same as what works best for others. But as a parent, the love and well-being of my child always comes first. And for me, that is what morality is about: it guides us to make the right decisions that affect not only ourselves but also the well-being of others. On a final note, I can look back to my twenty-three old self and say that did the morally right thing to leave college to become a full-time mother. I did not lose my dreams the way I feared, in fact, I had bigger dreams now that I had my boy with me. Fast forward ten years to the present, and I am glad that my younger self had the moral sensibilities that my older self would be proud of.
Our morality is tested in our choices, and oftentimes, we find ourselves in situations where there seems to be no escapable route– a moral dilemma. Recalling my own experience of having to oscillate between two very difficult choices was no easy feat, but it allowed me to discover where my moral compass points north. I was in college when I gave birth to my first child and due to a series of unfortunate events, found myself in a single-parenthood situation. A few months after giving birth, I had plans to go back to school and continue where I left off, and leave my child to my parent’s care. On one hand, I had a strong desire to continue with my studies, since to do so would somehow recompense the heartache that I’d caused my parents. On the other hand, my sense of motherly duty was as equally strong, and to fulfill this duty was a moral imperative. Therein lies the moral dilemma: Was it right for me to leave my child who was just an infant at the time to my parents’ care while I pursue my education?
Some may say that my moral responsibility as a parent is to put my child’s welfare first, so staying home to be my child’s sole carer at the very least would fulfill that responsibility. There are also those, the ethical egoists, who would say that it is morally justifiable for me to put my needs first, that is to finish my studies. It is hard to choose where the moral wisdom lies in those two conflicting moral advice because both offer desirable outcomes, but the ethical egoist would claim that my ultimate moral duty is to myself, therefore I should consider myself fundamentally more important than others. This complicates my moral dilemma because whether I decide to go back to school or stay at home, ethical egoism would insist that my decision is and should be, if it is not already, to maximize my personal benefit. On one hand, if I decided to go back to school, I would benefit from having the chance to earn a diploma, pursue further self-advancement, and even shine a sidewise gleam on rebuilding my rocky relationship with my parents and regain their trust, approval, and pride. This would eventually lead to creating a stable future for my child, but the egoist would forbid me from thinking that way because there is absolutely no moral requirement for me to do so. If I should care about my child´s future, the only motivation for doing so would be to benefit myself in the long run.
Realistically speaking, my conscience wouldn’t allow me to focus on myself while my child is left with my parents, and still, the egoist would insist that my terrible guilt is wholly self-interested. If I decided to stop going to school to focus on my motherly duties, an egoist would still say that, deep down, my source of moral duty is to free myself from my private guilts; after all, a clear conscience is a benefit. Whichever of the two paths I take, ethical egoism always seems to assume that both my desire to finish my studies and to be a hands-on mother has an ulterior motive which is to serve my self-interest. I would argue that just because a desire is mine does not mean that the object is only me and my self-interest, because whose desire it is and who the desire is for are two entirely different things. I could have that strong drive to finish my studies and sacrifice being away from my child to secure our future, or I could gladly choose to become a hands-on mother and set aside my education and do that for my own child’s sake. Apparently, egoism misses out on other possible moral motivations – love, for example – could be a genuine source of moral obligation. If I am willing to give a certain degree of self-sacrifice, what is the proof that my desires are purely out of my benefit? Where my direct desire is aimed at the benefit of my child, then isn’t that evidence of love, an act of altruism, and not egoism?
Having discovered that my moral duties align with my desired moral outcomes could perhaps resolve my moral dilemma. However, my moral efficacy would be tested further when confronted by ethical relativism, the view that moral judgments are true or false only relatively to some particular standpoint, and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. According to relativism, we cannot judge our own moral codes as superior or inferior to other people. This subjective morality in relativism opens a lot of room for tolerance where each of us may claim personal autonomy in making decisions based on our moral principles while letting go of expectations that others would fine-tune their moral beliefs for us. While this may sound great, this line of thinking in some way complicates my moral dilemma because this implies that my moral beliefs cannot be wrong, and this seem to cause more harm than good. If relativism is correct, then my moral principles can be based on my emotions, superficial thinking, or ignorance, and I can still be right.
What is more, relativists claim that there are no objective moral truths. This complicates my moral dilemma even more because in order for me to have some kind of moral guidance, an objective moral truth should be offered, but relativists would argue that there is no such thing. Without an objective moral truth, the relativist may argue that there is no absolute right answer to the question of whether I should prioritize my child or myself. Interestingly, while I approach my moral dilemma from a relativist perspective, I am presented with a side of my moral issue with which it can be viewed as a false dichotomy. My moral dilemma seems to be either I go back to school or I am a good mother when really there is a myriad of possible options. And somehow, this is when I would seek the counsel of others– to relativize my outlook and to gain some perspective that may lead to my own enlightenment and moral growth in one way or another.
In conclusion, I have come to realize that the dilemma of whether I should pursue higher education or prioritize child-rearing is a complex moral issue that requires careful consideration. The idea that I must sacrifice my own aspirations for my child, or vice versa, is a narrow and limiting perspective. From an egoist standpoint, I must consider what is in my best interest and what will bring me the most fulfillment. From a relativist perspective, I must understand that every parent's situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. There is no one right answer and the solution that works best for me may not be the same as what works best for others. But as a parent, the love and well-being of my child always comes first. And for me, that is what morality is about: it guides us to make the right decisions that affect not only ourselves but also the well-being of others. On a final note, I can look back to my twenty-three old self and say that did the morally right thing to leave college to become a full-time mother. I did not lose my dreams the way I feared, in fact, I had bigger dreams now that I had my boy with me. Fast forward ten years to the present, and I am glad that my younger self had the moral sensibilities that my older self would be proud of.
April 20, 2025
I adopted the third edition (2025) of this textbook for a class titled "Contemporary Moral Problems". I read and taught every introductory piece written by Shafer-Landau, plus the article by Jeske on cultural relativism, the passages from Mill, the passage from Kant, and the one from Hobbes.
I have taught another ethics textbook by Shafer-Landau before, "The Ethical Life" (6th Ed.) and I find both to be excellent sources for introducing people to moral philosophy. With this textbook, I tried out a different approach, mostly (as I said) utilizing Shafer-Landau's own words to engage with a broad variety of arguments for and against the topic of the day.
Shafer-Landau draws a good line between impartiality and more or less explicit endorsement of certain views. As most of the profession does, he leans towards more liberal positions (especially in chapters such as the one on sexuality) and atheistic positions (especially in the first chapter) but without enforcing his views as necessarily correct. He, instead, invites opponents (in this context, potential students with more conservative or religious views) to come up with rebuttals to what he seems to sincerely take to be positions he does not know how to attack further. I used to think that philosophers should be completely neutral when it comes to teaching, but that has the potential worrisome effect of making it seem like there is no answer to be found in philosophical inquiry. So, this intermediate approach seems best to me.
I have taught another ethics textbook by Shafer-Landau before, "The Ethical Life" (6th Ed.) and I find both to be excellent sources for introducing people to moral philosophy. With this textbook, I tried out a different approach, mostly (as I said) utilizing Shafer-Landau's own words to engage with a broad variety of arguments for and against the topic of the day.
Shafer-Landau draws a good line between impartiality and more or less explicit endorsement of certain views. As most of the profession does, he leans towards more liberal positions (especially in chapters such as the one on sexuality) and atheistic positions (especially in the first chapter) but without enforcing his views as necessarily correct. He, instead, invites opponents (in this context, potential students with more conservative or religious views) to come up with rebuttals to what he seems to sincerely take to be positions he does not know how to attack further. I used to think that philosophers should be completely neutral when it comes to teaching, but that has the potential worrisome effect of making it seem like there is no answer to be found in philosophical inquiry. So, this intermediate approach seems best to me.
May 2, 2022
Provides a great abridged version of several prominent philosophical debates and some fundamental texts that support a wide variety of premises related to contemporary issues. A good first stop for anyone wanting to see a glimpse of different ethics based philosophical frameworks and their accompanying applications.
December 28, 2023
Perhaps the material was better learned without a teacher. Enjoyed a lot of this book .
December 30, 2024
Good introductory book on ethics.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews