Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions

by Peter Kreeft

"It's a moral jungle out there," writes Peter Kreeft. In Making Choices he describes why we find decision-making so difficult and living with our choices even harder. With penetrating wisdom, good humor, and common sense, Peter Kreeft draws a map through the everyday jungle of moral choices, one simple enough for the believer and convincing enough for the skeptic. This book clears a straight road through the thorny jungles of skewed modern thinking about the way to live, and does do with the easy brilliance, impish insight, and searching simplicity that have become Peter Kreeft's special trademarks.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theology, Religion, Catholic, Christian Living, Christianity

218 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

About the author

Peter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy the way Kreeft writes and would probably enjoy his classes. I find myself skipping over the introductions of the lists he is about to cover and go straight for the meat of his arguments.

I was given this book by my spiritual director and had trouble understanding why he gave it to me to read other than it affirmed the Catholic faith.

I did come away from this book feeling more confident in my convictions on certain topics that are considered gray in today’s world. I could see where someone who disagreed with Kreeft and the Catholic Church would not enjoy this book.

[Lydia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[Tim Kauffman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good but not great. I'd say Kreeft has sacrificed rigor for accessibility in this book. I found the style - short, pithy soundbite sentences - rather unengaging. Kreeft said good things here, but it's all been said more eloquently and persuasively elsewhere.

[Apricity · Rating 1 out of 5]

NOTE: Although this book is not marketed as a "religious" book, the author adopts a conservative Christian approach to the definition of morality after running through basic philosophy. I'm giving it two stars for the author's clarity in explaining his thoughts and overview of several schools of thought, but nothing more because of the author's bias and focus on sex. I do not find it unreasonable that a philosopher's work would reflect his faith - but it seems excessive to make explicit references to that faith in a book that is not expressly marketed as a religious reference guide (see the quote below for an example of what I mean). Similarly, I'm not disputing that abortion and pre-martial sex are relevant moral issues - but a book on "everyday moral decisions" shouldn't focus on both topics to the exclusion of other topics.


[Summary by excerpt]

Non-moral choices are often “personal” in this sense: relative to the individual person or the group rather than absolute; subjective rather than objective; individual rather than universal. But moral choices are not like that, as I shall try to prove in the next chapter. Moral choices are choices between what is really, objectively right and what is really, objectively wrong. That’s why we feel guilty when we make wrong moral choices, but not when we make wrong non-moral choices. We may feel shame when we find out that we should have bought a cheaper TV or should have taken a different physical road, a short cut; but shame is not guilt.

Thomas Aquinas has a good answer to these questions. He says that there are three parts to morality, and all three parts must be good for any act to be morally good. The three are (1) the objective act itself, (2) the subjective motive, and (3) the situation, or circumstances.

You can no more be good without God than you can see without light. But you needn’t notice the light when you see objects.

"Christian sexual morality, like the rest of Christian morality, is based on human nature, on the kind of thing we are and the kind of thing sex is. It is not the changeable rules of a game we designed, but the unchangeable rules of the operating manual written by the Designer of our human nature."

Feelings and fashions are relative to each other. They are two aspects of the same worldly order. They are like money and power: each can buy the other. Fashions are the social form taken by the feelings of the fashion-makers, and feelings are the psychological form taken by social fashions. For example, most men today feel attracted to thin women because that is the fashion in our society (it was not so in the Renaissance); and that is the fashion in our society because that is how fashion-makers feel. The choice, then, is not between going by your internal feelings or by external fashions. Feelings may seem individual, even nonconformist, but they are conditioned by social fashions. The only real choice comes when you rise from the level of feelings and fashions to the level of free will and moral values. Only a choice between right and wrong is your choice; a choice between a big car and a small car in response to advertisements is really society’s choice. Many societies in history have consistently preached and inconsistently practiced the virtue of self-control, self-denial, self-discipline, both in the area of sex and in general. Why has our society pretty much abandoned not only the practice but even the preaching of this virtue? It is the mind that directs preaching, therefore the answer to that question has to be found in the realm of the mind, not the body.

[Marshall Hess · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kreeft leans heavily on natural law and reason for discerning and growing in the moral life. Coming from a Catholic author, I was disappointed at his lack of attention to the role of the body in moral growth. Most of his appeal is to the mind and soul, perhaps because he sees the soul as the primary residence of the image of God, rather than the whole human person. (Kreeft, 56) While he excellently critiques and exposes the power of culture in shaping modern forms of morality, he hardly mentions the alternative community necessary to train body and mind in moral growth, instead relying on individual reason and pursuit of the good.

[Izzy Masso]

bad :/

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read.
I took an ethics course about a year before reading this and making this review, and I enjoyed the course very much. My experience with that course was definitely a help with my progress through this book, but it was by no means essential to grasping its content. Kreeft, as in his other books, is very well written, and he explains his material very well. Scott Hahn, writing a review for one of Kreeft’s other books, puts it best by saying, “Kreeft is always lucid and utterly incapable of composing an incoherent sentence.”
One of the best ethics books I’ve read. Perhaps that’s not saying very much considering I haven’t read very many on the topic, but nevertheless, I really liked it.

[Leroy Lamar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Peter Kreeft does a very good job of making difficult philosophical concepts accessible to non-philosophers. In this way, he is very much like Mortimer Adler. Kreeft also gives us practical applications for these concepts. I found this to be very refreshing. I especially loved his chapter on simplicity. I read it every year. My only quibble with the book is Kreeft's Platonic dualism. I wish he would have stayed with Aristotle on this point.

[Monty James · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good treatise on ethics.

[loafingcactus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not impressed.

[Doug]

So far Peter Kreeft has not disappointed me. Balanced well presented case for practical decisions based on morality.

[MacusMacus · Rating 5 out of 5]

No hay grises! Blanco o negro

[Lukáš Janáč · Rating 4 out of 5]

in this genre (dialogue) - a great book for Christians - can be read in few hours..

[John Klooster · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first book by Kreeft. It was a bit difficult for me to get into but I’m happy that I stuck with it. I identified with his description of absolutes and how that serves as a backbone when an individual has to make moral types of decisions. I also appreciated his emphasis on conviction even in the face of opposition or conflict. He gives principles that help you decide for yourself the differences between good / evil and right / wrong.
I felt it was a helpful aid / guide that has enriched my thinking, decision making, and discernment process.

[Blaine Holbrooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

About halfway through this book I was certain I would give it 3 stars. It was solid but not the best. The second half was much different.

In my favorite chapters, Kreeft explains some theories on morality and then applies them to two main topics: abortion and sex. That part was so good. Really good stuff on practically living a moral life.

If you ever hear him speak, he writes the same exact way and I love that

[Miguel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lenten reading for 2025. Everyday we are faced with choices. Some are simple: bacon or sausage with our eggs. Others are not quite as simple a presents to us a moral dilemma. How do we make choices in that case and maintain a sense of whether we are right or wrong? In this book the author takes us down a pathway defined by the Natural Moral Law. Written from a Catholic theologian’s perspective there is ample ground for individuals of any faith, or no religious faith at all, to ponder.

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I slowly read this book over a few months and it was a highlight of my day each time I picked it up! A VERY practical guide on making choices morally as the title suggests. This book has become a close second to Mere Christianity, which is a very practical guide to apologetics. I think I will read them together over and over again!

[kesseljunkie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book, and worth reading. Very much challenges conclusions about sin, discernment, and faith - but I suspect it speaks better to those already on the path, as opposed to those who have yet to start the journey. I’ll be chewing on its propositions and conclusions for awhile.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although somewhat dated in its references now, the gist of the book is just as timely and important now as it was in 1990. The book covers many aspects of moral decision making and includes a healthy dose of philosophy but in a way that’s easy to follow.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely loved this book. Really helped me in 2019.

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

captious and dated

[Katelyn Boyer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absolutely terrible

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best and more practical books I’ve ever read.

[Charles Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mind-blowing! The consideration of moral values in making moral decisions still sends shudders up and down the spine of my conscience. Be ready to perform spiritual surgery, this book requires a lot of evaluation and reflection. Brilliant apologist, brilliant arguments.

[Krysta · Rating 3 out of 5]

My three main complaints are:

1) The author tries too hard to sound clever. It ends up sounding contrived and some of the comparisons are forced.

2) The author often rephrases ideas from Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, but does not mention that he has taken the idea or image from them. Other ideas are only vaguely cited as in, "Some author" or "C. S. Lewis" without a book citation. Footnotes would be nice.

3) The author is so convinced of his own side that he does not adequately take time to examine the arguments of the other side. He typically mentions them briefly, then categorically states that he has refuted them. I am not sure his opponents would be that easily convinced.