Adam Ehlert’s Reviews > Very Practical Ethics: Engaging Everyday Moral Questions > Status Update
Adam Ehlert
is on page 112 of 456
Chapter 3: Environment.
Nothing revolutionary is presented in this chapter. Unger argues that individuals with a large carbon footprint have a duty to lower their emissions but that this duty is limited if others are not also doing so. The best way of doing this? Eat plants, go car-free, don't have kids (shocker). Not particularly impressed by this chapter.
— Dec 01, 2025 02:15AM
Nothing revolutionary is presented in this chapter. Unger argues that individuals with a large carbon footprint have a duty to lower their emissions but that this duty is limited if others are not also doing so. The best way of doing this? Eat plants, go car-free, don't have kids (shocker). Not particularly impressed by this chapter.
Like flag
Adam’s Previous Updates
Adam Ehlert
is on page 311 of 456
Chapter 9: Bullshit
[nothing special going on here]
— Dec 05, 2025 03:49AM
[nothing special going on here]
Adam Ehlert
is on page 288 of 456
Chapter 7: Language / Chapter 8: Humour
In these chapters, it felt mostly like Benatar wanted to put up defenses against "wokeism". He discusses slurs and asks us to distinguish between "usage" and "mentioning". In his discussion on humour, I'm reminded on the ancient dictum - as soon as you explain a joke, it ceases to be funny. Good discussions throughout but a little to out of depth here to be fair
— Dec 04, 2025 11:20AM
In these chapters, it felt mostly like Benatar wanted to put up defenses against "wokeism". He discusses slurs and asks us to distinguish between "usage" and "mentioning". In his discussion on humour, I'm reminded on the ancient dictum - as soon as you explain a joke, it ceases to be funny. Good discussions throughout but a little to out of depth here to be fair
Adam Ehlert
is on page 218 of 456
Chapter 6: Consuming animals
While this chapter was good, it was all familiar stuff. Would be a very good introduction to food ethics, since it covered practically all the arguments in the literature. (TDLR: Don't eat animals if you don't have to for your own survival.)
— Dec 03, 2025 12:45AM
While this chapter was good, it was all familiar stuff. Would be a very good introduction to food ethics, since it covered practically all the arguments in the literature. (TDLR: Don't eat animals if you don't have to for your own survival.)
Adam Ehlert
is on page 171 of 456
Chapter 5: Giving Aid
A very extensive (and good) discussion of Peter Singers "Drowning Child"-thought experiment. Benatar claims that the premises of the argument are dubious and that the conclusion does not always follow. He argues that while we have duties to alleviate poverty, they are not as strong as Singer claims they are.
— Dec 03, 2025 12:40AM
A very extensive (and good) discussion of Peter Singers "Drowning Child"-thought experiment. Benatar claims that the premises of the argument are dubious and that the conclusion does not always follow. He argues that while we have duties to alleviate poverty, they are not as strong as Singer claims they are.
Adam Ehlert
is on page 145 of 456
Chapter 4: Smoking.
Benatar argues that smokers are not permitted to smoke in the presence of non-smokers (if these do not consent). He discusses the harm argument and the offence argument, and concludes that they are both strong, but that the offence argument is actually the strongest one because it can sidestep some objections to the harm argument.
— Dec 02, 2025 02:28AM
Benatar argues that smokers are not permitted to smoke in the presence of non-smokers (if these do not consent). He discusses the harm argument and the offence argument, and concludes that they are both strong, but that the offence argument is actually the strongest one because it can sidestep some objections to the harm argument.
Adam Ehlert
is on page 63 of 456
Chapter 2: Sex
Benatar at length discusses two views of the morality of sex, the romantic view and the casual view. While the latter seems to be the currently prevailing view, and can explain why promiscuitiy is not morally wrong, only the romantic view can explain the moral wrongness of things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. It does, however, entail that promiscuity is to some ectent morally wrong.
— Nov 28, 2025 06:13AM
Benatar at length discusses two views of the morality of sex, the romantic view and the casual view. While the latter seems to be the currently prevailing view, and can explain why promiscuitiy is not morally wrong, only the romantic view can explain the moral wrongness of things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. It does, however, entail that promiscuity is to some ectent morally wrong.
