The Elements of Moral Philosphy Chapter 4 Review

• Dwelling house
• My Books

Open Preview

Meet a Problem?

We'd love your assist. Allow us know what'due south wrong with this preview of The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels.

Thanks for telling us about the problem.

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

Exist the offset to ask a question about The Elements of Moral Philosophy

Community Reviews

 · 2,101 ratings  · 184 reviews

Start your review of The Elements of Moral Philosophy

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, Stuart Rachels
The Elements of Moral Philosophy, by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, is an ethics textbook. It explains a number of moral theories and topics, including cultural relativism, subjectivism, divine command theory, ethical egoism, social contract theory, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and deontology. The book uses real-life examples in explaining the theories.
James Rachels wrote the commencement edition in 1986. He revised the book iii tim The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, Stuart Rachels
The Elements of Moral Philosophy, past James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, is an ethics textbook. It explains a number of moral theories and topics, including cultural relativism, subjectivism, divine command theory, ethical egoism, social contract theory, utilitarianism, Kantian ideals, and deontology. The volume uses existent-life examples in explaining the theories.
James Rachels wrote the outset edition in 1986. He revised the book three times, adding a chapter on "The Ideals of Virtue" in 1993 and a chapter on "Feminism and the Ethics of Care" in 1999. The fourth edition appeared in 2003, the year Rachels died. Since then, his son Stuart has written the fifth edition and the sixth edition, which was released in Apr 2009. An eighth edition was released in October 2014.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه سپتامبر سال 2008 میلادی
عنوان: فلسفه اخلاق؛ نویسنده: جیمز راشل (ریچلز)؛ مترجم: آرش اخگری؛ تهران، انتشارات حکمت؛ ، در 304 ص؛ شابک: 9789648713558؛
ا. شربیانی ...more

Dec 11, 2014 Brandt rated it really liked it  · review of another edition

Recommends it for: People Interested in Moral Philosophy

Afterward looking over some of the reviews here on goodreads nearly this book, I had to acknowledge I found them somewhat amusing. After doing some research on the people who rated this book poorly, information technology would seem that they just don't cover the usefulness of this book.
I used this book as a companion piece for reading classical, modern, and gimmicky essays by "the greats" in moral philosophy. Perhaps, the best fashion to utilize this book, and one I would strongly recommend for those who didn't go information technology, is Afterwards looking over some of the reviews here on goodreads well-nigh this book, I had to acknowledge I plant them somewhat amusing. After doing some research on the people who rated this book poorly, it would seem that they only don't comprehend the usefulness of this book.
I used this book every bit a companion slice for reading classical, modern, and contemporary essays past "the greats" in moral philosophy. Perhaps, the all-time way to use this book, and one I would strongly recommend for those who didn't get it, is for that purpose. As an example, and I use this example, because I think this is the source of much of the poor ratings, I read St. Augustine's essay's Of the Morals of the Catholic Church and The Enchiridion . Then I read St. Aquinas' essay's Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica . I followed these two classics with a modernistic reading of Soren Kirkegaard's The Journals, Either/Or , and Fear and Trembling . I concluded with a contemporary reading of Philip L. Quinn's God and Morality . At the decision of these readings I then read chapter iv of this book, Does Morality Depend on Religion .
It is only within the agreement of these writings, and then reading the chapter in this book, that the usefulness of the information becomes clear. This book summarizes the complete doctrines of, for instance, Divine Control Theory, Natural Law, and the overall presumed connection between morality and religion. Forth with this, it shows the problems associated with these systems of morality/ethics.
All of the moral/ethical systems presented by this book are also exposed to criticism. For some of the ethical systems, the criticism becomes either to hard to overcome, or needs further clarification to be a workable system. Keeping in line with the examples of Affiliate 4, a serious defect and insurmountable objection comes to Divine Command Theory and Natural Police. It is this disability of these ethical systems to overcome the objection that I think exposes the truthful reason for the bad review of this book.
Overall, I take nothing merely praise for the book, and I recall information technology is important to also take note in the fact that the book does not make claim to which upstanding/moral system is correct. Information technology only shows the various systems and elements of them (hence the discussion "element" in the title). Volition this volume tell you what is wrong or correct? No. Can this book be used to highlight and critique elements of ethical systems? Yes.
Perhaps, if you have an interest in moral philosophy, and really want to empathize it, then this volume is for you. Bask the journey. ...more

Sep 25, 2010 Paul, rated information technology did non like information technology

This book is full of logical fallacies and unwarranted assumptions. Yet, these assumptions are part of the warp and woof of the modernistic American worldview, and so they are nigh invisible to the unwary reader. How surprising that an academic text on ethics would determine that organized religion and morality are unrelated, that human reason is the gateway and determiner of morality, and that absolute morals do not be!! Whatsoever observer of our civilisation would know that this is the kind of morality that we wou This book is full of logical fallacies and unwarranted assumptions. All the same, these assumptions are part of the warp and woof of the modern American worldview, so they are well-nigh invisible to the unwary reader. How surprising that an academic text on ideals would determine that religion and morality are unrelated, that human reason is the gateway and determiner of morality, and that absolute morals practice not exist!! Whatever observer of our culture would know that this is the kind of morality that we would produce. Then Dr. Rachels finds himself a victim of his own worldview, however strangely confident in all his assertions. ...more

Aug 06, 2012 Ruxandra rated information technology really liked it

Socrates: We are discussing no small affair, but how we ought to live.

This review is mostly for who is new to the world of Ideals-past-the-book, every bit I am.
Therefore, if you want to expand your noesis and ethical reasoning across the golden rule, this book might be the all-time commencement. It is very upward-to-appointment, very structured, not boring at all: information technology tries to explain philosophically the answers to many questions we have asked ourselves:

• [How] should we judge cultures that have different moral code

Socrates: We are discussing no minor affair, simply how nosotros ought to alive.

This review is more often than not for who is new to the world of Ethics-by-the-book, equally I am.
Therefore, if yous want to expand your knowledge and ethical reasoning beyond the gilded rule, this book might be the all-time start. It is very up-to-date, very structured, non deadening at all: information technology tries to explain philosophically the answers to many questions we have asked ourselves:

• [How] should we gauge cultures that have different moral codes?
• Does morality depend on organized religion? What is their true relationship, anyway?
• How can y'all objectively ascertain what is right and what is wrong?
• Are women different than men or not? Should we care for men and women differently?
• etc.

Afterward starting with very interesting and modern examples to illustrate the questions above, the author goes on to analyse the proposals of the great philosophers to explain Ethics equally a solution for humanity (and not merely) then that the happiness of the individual is also optimised. Thus, it goes to the description, pro's and con'south of:

• Ethical Egoism - practice whatsoever is in your all-time interest
• Utilitarianism - do any promotes the best ratio of happiness over unhappiness in the earth
• Kant's idea that we should find moral rules that can be followed by everybody no matter the circumstances. (Eastward.g.: you shouldn't prevarication, no matter what.)
• Social Contract - exercise whatever is of common benefit to you and the society you live in as a self-interested, rational individual

All of them seem bonny at first sight, but no, none is perfect :)
Actually, that is what disappoints me regarding this volume - that at that place is no clear solution to "how we ought to live" and the moral problems described in the get-go chapters seem to remain unsolved, because the writer tries to exist politically correct. All the same, the ideas of Ethics of Care (feminism) and Ideals of Virtue proposed are almost disarming.

To put it differently,the fact that the book is more a textbook than a philosophical thesis meant to convince, is the reason why I liked much, much more the kickoff Ethics volume I've read -- Ética para Amador, by Fernando Savater; this one went straight to my heart, even though it is simpler (it is a volume for teenagers.) And so I will promote it to 4 or 5 starts.

...more than

Mar 02, 2012 Katie rated it it was ok

I thought it was alright,
I liked the examples he used, I think they made it easier to contrast the theories with one another, however I could barely tolerate the bias throughout the thing.
Even when I agreed with the ideas Rachels was saying I found myself put off, just because of the obvious side he would take with each theory, brushing off any counter arguments that could exist.

Also the conclusions seemed hasty to me, and they would make leaps from the premises to his point, for example:
'The

I thought it was alright,
I liked the examples he used, I remember they made information technology easier to contrast the theories with one another, notwithstanding I could barely tolerate the bias throughout the matter.
Fifty-fifty when I agreed with the ideas Rachels was maxim I found myself put off, only because of the obvious side he would take with each theory, brushing off any counter arguments that could exist.

Also the conclusions seemed hasty to me, and they would make leaps from the premises to his point, for example:
'The argument may be summarized like this: When one person says "X is morally acceptable," and someone else says "X is morally unacceptable," they are disagreeing. Still, if Simple Subjectivism were correct, there would be no disagreement between them. Therefore Unproblematic Subjectivism cannot be right.' (P35, Int Ed.)

I'm probably missing something, only isn't the bespeak of that whole affiliate revolving around the theory that those quotes are personal, and dissever from right and wrong, based on feeling? How does he suddenly make up one's mind that they are wrong? Why is in that location a disagreement? Surely you tin't discount a theory just because it clashes with another theory?

...more

December 27, 2017 Sille rated information technology information technology was amazing

This book is neat! It has helped me understand and recognize the way people contend when having discussions.

It is a good volume to outset reading if yous are new to and interested in moral and ethical philosophy

I am vegan and therefore I naturally end up in discussions with people about wether or not information technology'due south immoral to eat and use not-human animals, and this book has actually helped me recognize people's reasonings for sticking to their selfish habits, which is of cracking assistance, because I now know the coun

This book is great! It has helped me sympathize and recognize the style people argue when having discussions.

It is a expert book to kickoff reading if you are new to and interested in moral and ethical philosophy

I am vegan and therefore I naturally end upward in discussions with people about wether or not it's immoral to eat and employ non-human being animals, and this book has really helped me recognize people'south reasonings for sticking to their selfish habits, which is of great help, because I at present know the counter arguments of moral philosophies when in debates.

He also explains almost everything in a way that virtually everyone should be able to understand. This meant that I didn't accept to wait upward words or terms etc. as much equally I feared I'd take to.

Recommend!

...more

May 10, 2018 Vitak rated it actually liked it

This is amazing. This eyeopening masterpiece really gets me question about so many things in life, value, beliefs, and social structure. Very powerful indeed.

One of the most memorable quotes is from the Theory of Natural Constabulary. "If God forbids certain behaviors, is it because S/he knows what is right or is information technology because South/he is God"? And "information technology is irrational to think that your civilization is the best because all cultures are true-at least inside their own lodge".

More quotes and life lessons. I exercise not read

This is astonishing. This eyeopening masterpiece really gets me question about and then many things in life, value, behavior, and social structure. Very powerful indeed.

One of the most memorable quotes is from the Theory of Natural Law. "If God forbids sure behaviors, is it because S/he knows what is right or is it because S/he is God"? And "it is irrational to think that your civilization is the best because all cultures are truthful-at least within their own social club".

More than quotes and life lessons. I do not read much not-fiction. But this book is and so worth it!!!

...more

Aug 11, 2016 Mardin Uzeri rated it really liked it

Engaging and clear

"And in ideals we should oftentimes expect people not to listen to reason: Afterward all, ideals frequently requires us to exercise things nosotros don't want to do, so it is only to be expected that sometimes nosotros endeavour to avoid hearing its demands."

This piece of work serves as a good starting signal to dive into the vast realms of moral philosophy. I believe the well structured approach and the simply put formulations of the popular moral theories exercise provide solid ground to build upon. It claims to be introductory

Engaging and clear

"And in ethics we should oft wait people not to heed to reason: After all, ethics oft requires u.s.a. to do things nosotros don't want to exercise, then it is only to be expected that sometimes we try to avoid hearing its demands."

This work serves as a good starting point to swoop into the vast realms of moral philosophy. I believe the well structured approach and the simply put formulations of the popular moral theories exercise provide solid footing to build upon. Information technology claims to be introductory and that is exactly what it is.

I won't say that Rachels was entirely unbiased throughout though. I felt like some of the theories (like The Divine Command) were not given their proper due and some theories on the other paw were spared from a formidable criticism.

...more

Particular reviewers hither have critiqued Rachels' volume on their complete misunderstanding of ethics and philosophy in general. Certain "top" reviewers here accept taken umbrage at Rachels for taking the position that morality is non dependent upon God's existence or commands. The majority of philosophers accept this position, so this is inappreciably controversial for Rachels to put forth and defend. Divine control theory died a horrible expiry over 2 millennia ago when Euthyphro, much like sure "height" Detail reviewers here have critiqued Rachels' book on their complete misunderstanding of ideals and philosophy in general. Certain "superlative" reviewers here have taken umbrage at Rachels for taking the position that morality is non dependent upon God'south existence or commands. The majority of philosophers take this position, so this is inappreciably controversial for Rachels to put forth and defend. Divine control theory died a horrible death over ii millennia agone when Euthyphro, much like certain "height" reviewers of Rachels' book, postured and bumbled along in an attempt to defend his illusory moral expertise. And speaking of illusory moral expertise, some well-liked critics of Rachels' book believe Kant argued for moral relativism, which 1 would know is horribly wrong had one bothered to read Rachels' book or whatsoever other introductory book on ethics (or stepped foot into an introductory ethics course). Now, that said, I feel compelled to give a quick listing of the cons and pros of "The Elements of Moral Philosophy."

Positives:

-While it is overall uneven in how well it approaches key ideas in ethics, information technology does a decent task of conveying some of import ideas. Chapters worth reading include "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (chapter 2), "Ethical Egoism" (affiliate 5), "The Debate Over Utilitarianism" (chapter eight), "Are In that location Absolute Moral Rules?" (chapter 9), "Kant and Respect For Persons" (chapter x), and "Virtue Ethics" (chapter 12).

-Each chapter is a relatively quick read, merely Rachels makes good utilise of the limited space to convey the basics in the chapters I recommended above.

Negatives:

-The rest of the chapters do non give students a satisfactory overview. As some other reviewer pointed out (I believe on Amazon'southward folio for this book), the affiliate on subjectivism is pretty muddled. It spends a lot of time talking nearly emotivism (which is a separate metaethical position entirely), error theory (once more, this is an entirely dissimilar position), and Rachels defines subjectivism as if it were simply emotivism or some variant of information technology, which goes against the orthodox definition and muddies emotivism. The chapter on care ethics spent too much time going over dubious show as to whether men and women think differently about ethics and not enough fourth dimension on actual care ideals. Finally, the chapter on God and morality spent as well fiddling time on divine command theory and natural law and as well much fourth dimension on some religious people's biblical interpretations, appeals to tradition, and appeals to authority to support their moral views.

-The sales practice of releasing a new edition nearly every year is ridiculous and unnecessary. If yous're pupil who needs to buy this, so more likely than not you could get away with buying a cheaper, older edition.

-Equally a general criticism: each chapter needs to exist greatly expanded upon. This should definitely be the case if this is meant to be a textbook for an introductory ethics grade. As a stand alone book on ethics, it doesn't practise a groovy chore introducing the topic to students. Information technology could work as a supplement in a classroom, but fifty-fifty then there are amend introductory books on ideals.

[Edit: ii/18/xvi]

I'g changing my rating from two stars to three stars. The book has grown on me. As well, I've establish older philosophy texts that refer to subjectivism equally Rachels does, so I recollect I was too harsh to criticize him roughly there.

[Edit: 7/21/21]

Bumpin' information technology up again. Afterwards reading more introductory ethics books, I keep coming back to Rachels' as I remember it stands to a higher place and then many others in being curtailed and offering some good insight. Also, Rachels is on the money with his criticism of relativism and subjectivism. Those views can go to hell.

...more

I read this when I had a quite deep involvement in philosophy and ideals - why should I or shouldn't I retrieve or human activity this or that manner. I hungered for some months for a book that would go me thinking correctly and logically about these kinds of bug, so I asked my philosophy teacher if he could help me observe ane. He immediatly recommended The Elements of Moral Philosophy, legitimating his option by saying it'south a groovy get-go-off book for those who want to call up more than well-nigh such important problems and I read this when I had a quite deep interest in philosophy and ideals - why should I or shouldn't I remember or act this or that fashion. I hungered for some months for a book that would get me thinking correctly and logically about these kinds of bug, and then I asked my philosophy instructor if he could assist me find one. He immediatly recommended The Elements of Moral Philosophy, legitimating his choice by saying it'south a great start-off book for those who want to think more about such important issues and brand the world a better place by changing it.
I was quite young (all the same am, but not as naive) then I got pretty excited when he told me these things. And so I went out to buy the volume, read it in a couple weeks, presented information technology to my class making them believe what I had come to believe: that I had suddenly become a more ponderate, intelligent and wise person. Although, as weeks turned to months and months turned to years, I came to realize I wasn't. But afterwards a long time had I come to realize that the book had barely teached me anything - of what I wanted to learn. Sure, it was a good read. And I did learn something. I learned how religion is pretty much ridiculously stupid on - at to the lowest degree - what comes to homossexuality: it'southward very easy to refute a religious argument against homossexuality. Having a special problem with organized religion, I did focous on refuting some of its positions, so I also learned effectively that morality should not and must not accept anything to do with religion and vice-versa and am very glad I did.

There was one particular chapter of the book I didn't like: the one about subjectivism. James Rachels supports the idea that altruism is indeed possible - that people that like to do skilful things do non do information technology to feel adept. This is something I can't have. I am not a correct-fly guy nor do I recollect people are bad and never mean proficient to other people (am I repeating myself?), but for me it's not conceivable that my mother stayed at dwelling house instead of working and hunt her wildest dreams to have care of her kids just considering she wants them to take a great and non-hard life. She also did information technology considering she feels good near it. And that'south why she keeps doing information technology - for her own personal pleasure. If she didn't similar what she did, she wouldn't be doing it.

James Rachels did a great chore introducing me to morality and to philosophical thinking - but information technology did not add much to what I had already learned just past going to school, and I don't recall he wrote this volume only thinking about people who can't go to school... Anyhow, fifty-fifty if not as much as I'd like to, the book presents you some interesting ideas and stimulates - again, even if not as much as I'd like to - your thinking to go more logically wise.

...more

Very clear and understandable. It gave examples of the things y'all are learning, and then that was also very helpful.

Sep eighteen, 2017 Thomfrost rated it it was amazing

This is a articulate, logical, no-nonsense overview of the master ethical frameworks philosophers have been able to come up with. If the way ane speaks tells us something about the content of what they are saying, yous should already be able to gauge Rachels'due south own philosophical groundwork. Is it comprehensive? Well, it depends. Rachels doesn't give united states of america a history of ideals, or an introduction to the philosophers who have developed such theories. Rather, what he does is to eddy down every theoretical syste This is a clear, logical, no-nonsense overview of the main ethical frameworks philosophers have been able to come upwardly with. If the way one speaks tells us something about the content of what they are proverb, you should already be able to guess Rachels'due south own philosophical background. Is it comprehensive? Well, information technology depends. Rachels doesn't give us a history of ethics, or an introduction to the philosophers who have developed such theories. Rather, what he does is to boil downwardly every theoretical organization to its rawest, nigh logical form and come across whether it works or non. Is information technology biased? I'thousand sure many think it is, just even they would admit that Rachels gives the reader plenty of opportunities to disagree with him and estimate the theories for themselves. Overall, I call up this tin be a valuable book for students and lay people alike. But, be warned. Information technology'south not your typical textbook. There are neither diagrams, nor pictures in it, and Rachels's vernacular tone may not be what yous are looking for.

What y'all get:

- what is morality?
- The challenge of cultural relativism
- subjectivism in ethics
- Does morality depend on organized religion?
- psychological egoism
- ethical egoism
- The utilitarian approach
- The argue over utilitarianism
- Are there absolute moral rules?
- Kant and respect for persons
- The idea of social contract
- Feminism and the ethics of care
- The ethics of virtue
- what would a satisfactory moral theory be like?

...more

Sep 23, 2017 Jon rated information technology it was ok

##I'm only well-nigh half-mode through the book and have not finished it. Therefore my review will be incomplete but I volition update the review as I go on##

TLDR: Since this book is called The "Elements" of Moral Philosophy, thus emphasizing the foundation, my review must admit that it volition not be too in-depth. As a survey I give it 4 stars. Nevertheless if yous already know the full general moral philosophical theories, this would not exist a great volume for you.

This book is a good book to utilise as an introductio

##I'm only nearly half-way through the book and have not finished information technology. Therefore my review volition exist incomplete merely I will update the review equally I go on##

TLDR: Since this book is called The "Elements" of Moral Philosophy, thus emphasizing the foundation, my review must acknowledge that it will non be as well in-depth. As a survey I give it 4 stars. Even so if you already know the general moral philosophical theories, this would not exist a dandy volume for yous.

This volume is a good volume to utilise every bit an introduction into moral philosophy equally information technology is supplemented with entertaining real life problems and is adequately simple. Also the sections are self-independent and can be viewed contained of whether you have read the previous parts. That is especially helpful for a beginner who is lacking in a specific aspect of moral philosophy.

I plant the department on Psychological Egoism to be severely defective. This is particularly unfortunate for me equally some 1 who is inclined to believe it simply who realizes that it would make the goal of studying morality moot. In specific, James states that he understands that the psychological egoist volition say the goal of altruism is an illusion to some ulterior motive, just in gild to oppose this James gives superficial accounts of why the reasons aren't for some ulterior cocky-interested motive.

Secondly, in the section on Classical Utilitarianism he states that Utilitarian'south don't base their theory on Hedonism because we value things other than pleasure. However I do not believe he adequately shows that we value things like friendship for themselves and not for the pleasure it brings.

In sum, James Rachels does a good task at stating some chief concepts in moral philosophy but doesn't e'er do justice to the theories and their opposing arguments when he states oppositions without properly elaborating. This review may audio unfairly negative of James, however I'yard really not that disappointed in the book. Fifty-fifty though he doesn't always do the best job in describing opposing points, he still does a decent job. For the length of the book, y'all can't expect much more...

As a side note, James annoyingly contradicts himself when he places besides much accent on whether or not a theory fits the mutual-sense conception of morality or if it is practices widely today. This is contradicting considering he states early in the book that just considering someone has a belief doesn't brand it true (conspicuously). For case, during his word of Utilitarianism he states that it places unrealistic expectations because one normally isn't required to be so benevolent to requite away everything. However this has no relation to whether or not the theory is correct. He does mention this criticism as a possible response to the objections in that case, simply the fact that he "plays the function" in the balance of the text without description is still annoying.

...more

A precise and well-written introductory text for those who desire to start exploring moral philosophy. Major upstanding approaches like Egoism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Social Contract and Kantian ethics were clearly explained with arguments both in favor and against these approaches.

Notwithstanding, merely like with every introductory volume, it tempts you lot to outset drawing conclusions. Don't fall for it. This is meant to be only the starting point without much profundity. Read this book and then move

A precise and well-written introductory text for those who want to start exploring moral philosophy. Major ethical approaches like Egoism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ideals, Social Contract and Kantian ethics were clearly explained with arguments both in favor and confronting these approaches.

Still, merely like with every introductory book, it tempts you to outset drawing conclusions. Don't fall for it. This is meant to exist only the starting point without much profundity. Read this volume and then move on to more in-depth specialized texts on Ethics and Moral Philosophy.

...more than

I enjoyed this introduction to ethics. Information technology makes me want to read more on the subject.

Information technology gave me a clear cut idea most the theories of moral theories and information technology'due south criticism.
Information technology gave me a clear cut idea well-nigh the theories of moral theories and it's criticism.
...more

Oct 01, 2020 Awaz rated it liked information technology

Information technology was useful! At to the lowest degree I learned some basics about moral theories..

Moral philosophy is something I've long been interested in despite having no formal familiarity with it. I think almost the concepts and reason behind values and ethics and moral behavior often, but without any grounding in the piece of work of the field. This seemed similar a swell book to introduce me to effective and reasonable ways of thinking about the subject. I was wrong. It'southward not but neat, it's outstanding.

Rachels presents the master areas of moral philosophy to have developed over fourth dimension, and succi

Moral philosophy is something I've long been interested in despite having no formal familiarity with information technology. I recall about the concepts and reason backside values and ideals and moral beliefs oft, but without any grounding in the work of the field. This seemed like a nifty book to introduce me to constructive and reasonable ways of thinking about the subject. I was wrong. It's not just swell, it's outstanding.

Rachels presents the master areas of moral philosophy to have adult over time, and succinctly just informatively discusses their strengths and weaknesses. I was pleased to see how strongly moral philosophy is tied to reason and logical, critical thinking, as that'southward how I imagined such a discipline should be approached, but wasn't sure if it was.

Each affiliate is a different essay expounding on a particular issue, idea, or theory of moral philosophy, and Rachels lays everything out and so coherently, with no wasted space, no needless jargon or circumlocution, eloquently giving each topic the example it deserves, and (at least for me) giving awfully convincing arguments every bit to why, despite some theories' massive strengths, they fall brusque in some style. He doesn't miss a shell, and seems to give equal consideration to 'competing' ideas, how they complement one another, how they differ, where some are better than others, and how their elements tin can be thought about in the context of our world and cultures.

Human and animal welfare are considered. The downfalls of cultural relativity are clearly presented, along with things nosotros can learn from an ultimately flawed but non useless framework. Subjectivism in ideals is dissected. Religion'south authority (or lack thereof) on morality is established. I was surprised to exist able to anticipate the reasons for some of the conclusions most each of these issues, and pleased that nada seemed unreasonable or beyond the telescopic of rationality.

So the four leading theories of moral philosophy were presented, all bonny in their ain ways, and some initially actualization to me to be rather sufficient. To be articulate, the reason they are or were leading (or at least taken very seriously) is because to some degree they *are* sufficient, but not in all areas, and they are not universal or consummate. Rachels presents sound reasoning in laying out the weaknesses of each, some of which I'd anticipated, others which were eye opening and enlightening, giving a glimpse of the kind of disquisitional thinking necessary in this field. It was absolutely invigorating to read, to reflect on, to spend time pondering over and over, and engaging with. The social contract, for example, provides the most flawless justification for civil defiance that may exist, and other theories provide similarly powerful forms of analysis of other bug. I was surprised at how weak Kant's theory on morality was, despite it having some obvious good points.

What strikes me as most odd is that philosophy seems to refuse theories if they are even partially incorrect, instead of keeping the parts that are right and combining them with parts of other theories that are right. It'due south equally though a k unifying theory of moral philosophy is existence sought, and anything less than perfect is rejected. Each of the theories detailed here have strong points that I think are valuable to anyone, despite their disagreeable qualities that do clearly demand to be modified or ignored.

Toward the stop, every bit he lays out a concept of how we could achieve a satisfactory moral theory, Rachels presents a highly reasoned argument for treating people as they deserve, based on merit and deserts, which seems to fit perfectly into multiple theories and brings about more desirable conditions for gild. He has no audacity to assume he will be able to formalize a perfect moral theory, just he has given an invaluable overview of the topic, and more than importantly, shows one how to think most information technology. If you're looking to philosophy to go your proverbial fish, don't waste your time. This volume, like good philosophy, is your proverbial fishing lesson.

...more

Good, if extremely short, introduction to moral philosophy. Mainly covers the main ideas throughout history, such equally virtue ideals and utilitarianism. One of the issues is it only touches on each of these theories in their oldest and least refined forms, giving the pros and cons in a balanced way. Mod corrections and arguments to these flaws are ignored, however. The end gives united states a cursory synthesis into a satisfactory moral theory of the author, although it falls prey to some of the aforementioned fau Expert, if extremely brusk, introduction to moral philosophy. Mainly covers the main ideas throughout history, such equally virtue ideals and utilitarianism. Ane of the issues is information technology simply touches on each of these theories in their oldest and least refined forms, giving the pros and cons in a counterbalanced way. Modern corrections and arguments to these flaws are ignored, however. The end gives united states a cursory synthesis into a satisfactory moral theory of the writer, although it falls prey to some of the same faults he was admonishing onto the other theories. This volume covers a lot of history yet tin can still exist easily read in a single sitting without too much mental strain. You lot'll walk abroad knowing a decent crude outline of the history of moral thinking if you've never dabbled in the subject earlier.

The biggest flaw with the book is that it ignores current moral thinking by philosophers, such as upstanding intuitionism. I think if the author focused more than on the subjective/objective divide in morality information technology would take been more profound, as that is the main question that philosophers argue today.

...more

Feb 16, 2016 James Miller rated it it was amazing

An excellent survey of moral theory. I have used passages with students for the new AQA Philosophy A-Level and it has proven accessible for them. It covers the major trends in contemporary theory (Kantian Deontology; Utilitarianism; Social Contract Theory; Virtue Theory) and for each acknowledges the strengths and besides the more devastating criticisms.

At that place is a very welcome focus on case studies including Animal use, the Courage of figures both acting to forbid the holocaust and those involved

An excellent survey of moral theory. I have used passages with students for the new AQA Philosophy A-Level and it has proven accessible for them. It covers the major trends in gimmicky theory (Kantian Deontology; Utilitarianism; Social Contract Theory; Virtue Theory) and for each acknowledges the strengths and also the more devastating criticisms.

There is a very welcome focus on instance studies including Animal use, the Courage of figures both acting to forbid the holocaust and those involved (does their courage have a different valence?) and many others. It doesn't really bargain with meta-ethics, but makes some nods towards information technology.

The mix of detailed discussion of cardinal thinkers, with key quotes etc., and some limited concluding remarks suggesting ways of bringing Utilitarian ethics together with aspects of Virtue theory and Feminist ethics is also bonny and reasonably compelling.

...more

This book was my ethics form companion volume, and i read information technology in autemn 2017. Materials presented in this volume are well ordered (like most other textbooks on ethics), but the principal trouble with this was the manner of presentation and the manner he critisied different approaches in ethics. Rejecting theories by drawing contradiction with another (supposedly) wider accepted theory, is not only problematic, but also unbearable and misleading. This trouble appeared in chapters nearly Hobbesian ethics and This book was my ethics form companion book, and i read it in autemn 2017. Materials presented in this book are well ordered (like most other textbooks on ideals), but the primary trouble with this was the way of presentation and the way he critisied different approaches in ideals. Rejecting theories by drawing contradiction with some other (supposedly) wider accepted theory, is not simply problematic, but also unbearable and misleading. This problem appeared in chapters about Hobbesian ethics and egoism, he critisied egoism by apealing to common sense, kantian ethics and alturism where these are, shamefully, authors (ilogical) presumptions. The chapter which is in defence of the golden rule is exactly the same and I am to say that the book is more about to tell you of the author's prejudices. ...more

Mar 16, 2009 Ashley rated it really liked it

This book gave me alot of insight on the views of morals and so on. I definitely kept an openmind while reading it and I can say that I honestly understood alot of the points that were being made even if I may not accept completely agreed. It makes sense as to why people would come up up with the reasoning and conclusions that they practise. I have a newfound respect for many different cultures, species, logics and such. This book besides makes for not bad discussion for someone who also knows anything nigh ph This volume gave me alot of insight on the views of morals and and so on. I definitely kept an openmind while reading it and I can say that I honestly understood alot of the points that were being made even if I may non have completely agreed. It makes sense equally to why people would come upwardly with the reasoning and conclusions that they do. I have a newfound respect for many dissimilar cultures, species, logics and such. This volume also makes for great discussion for someone who as well knows anything about philosophy or has read something similar. I'll definitely exist picking up more books on the subject field to farther educate myself. ...more

Nov 18, 2016 Christopher rated information technology did not like it

"A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Beverage deep, or sense of taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers u.s. again."
-Alexander Pope

Did I learn some things from this volume? Yeah. Was information technology well put together? Yeah at the beginning, no at the end. Was information technology shallow and biased? Yep.

"A trivial learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or sense of taste non the Pierian bound :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope

Did I learn some things from this book? Yeah. Was information technology well put together? Yes at the start, no at the end. Was it shallow and biased? Yep.

...more

Sep 23, 2008 Anne rated it it was ok

Rachels has a very quack way of presenting the information. He doesn't nowadays the reader with all the facts at once- instead he gives them piecemeal. Very deceptive, manipulative, and completely dishonest...I don't know why I'm giving information technology two stars. Rachels has a very dishonest way of presenting the information. He doesn't nowadays the reader with all the facts at once- instead he gives them piecemeal. Very deceptive, manipulative, and completely dishonest...I don't know why I'g giving it two stars. ...more than

A textbook on Moral Philosophy

The Elements of Moral Philosophy

I am troubled by the fact this textbook on Moral Philosophy fails to ascertain what a moral is. Instead, the authors get straight into making statements virtually morality. (It should be noted that James Rachel was the sole writer of the showtime four editions and passed abroad in 2003. He work is connected by Stuart Rachel.) It would seem to me that a textbook of this nature would make a distinction betwixt a moral and morality giving definitions

A textbook on Moral Philosophy

The Elements of Moral Philosophy

I am troubled past the fact this textbook on Moral Philosophy fails to define what a moral is. Instead, the authors go direct into making statements about morality. (It should be noted that James Rachel was the sole author of the first iv editions and passed abroad in 2003. He work is continued by Stuart Rachel.) It would seem to me that a textbook of this nature would make a distinction betwixt a moral and morality giving definitions for both.

A moral and morality are quite different things. In my opinion, a moral is a statement or concept that defines that action that a person might take as either correct or wrong. One tin argue to length what "correct" and "wrong" mean. They are not the same equally truthful or imitation, or for matter, good or bad, although mutual dictionaries defined them in that fashion. Specifically, we look at a moral every bit having ii possible or binary states, right and wrong. An action consistent with the moral is right while an activeness inconsistent with the moral is wrong. It is not inconceivable that some might concord that morals may have more states merely for purposes of this philosophy, we should consider them binary. Thus for a given moral, an activeness can be right, bad and false, all at the same time, although one would await a right action under an accepted moral to good and truthful. Past accustomed, I mean a moral that one choses thus accepts to honour in their life. Clearly, for people who accept never thought about morals, their lodge has chosen them for those people in absentia.

Morality is a system of beliefs almost accepted morals. A organisation contains elements, in this case, an group of morals accepted into the system. Some subset of the moral group may allow a mutual principle of action to emerge under analysis. The morality system may also start from a principle a priori from separate morals then tin exist derived.

The authors hold there is a minimum system for morality, to wit, "Morality is, at the very to the lowest degree, the endeavour to guide ane's acquit by reason—that is, to do what at that place are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual afflicted past one's activity." But this definition contains moral statements and can not be accepted as an impartial definition. The authors, who in the last chapter of the book suggest their support for "Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism," admit that their biases may have intruded into their work in the Introduction.

Their concept of a moral is biased by prejudged concepts of what morals are correct and incorrect and thus is reflexive. It is important that any educatee using this as a textbook understand that prior to their study of this book.

Nonetheless, once that is understood, and the biases of the writer in several contemporary issues, the book is an easy read. The authors discuss several prominent morality theories and try to present the unbiased pro'southward and con's of the theories.

Among the theories discussed are Utilitarianism, the Categorical Imperative, Ethical Egoism (others have term this Objectivism,) Virtue Ethics, and the Social Contract Theory. There is a chapter on feminist theories of care which I experience is either misplaced or underdeveloped but consistent with the authors' biases for contemporary problems.

I think, with the criticisms in a higher place noted, the authors take accomplished a goal of teaching Moral Philosophy in their textbook. I also believe this is an introduction, a starting point for the subject area. I would encourage the student to read original sources, in their original linguistic communication if they accept the ability to do so.

...more than

Aug 17, 2021 Jon Comer rated it really liked it

Rachels does an beauteous job with the hard task of explaining the progress of moral ethics through the centuries. He knows his audition as this book is geared toward people with fiddling to no prior noesis of ideals. Relevant and controversial examples are given to either back up or attack the upstanding theories presented in this volume.

Theories covered include Cultural Relativism, Utilitarianism, Kantian, Ethical Egoism, Social Contract, Virtue Ethics, and a few more. Rachels is piece of cake to unde

Rachels does an admirable job with the difficult task of explaining the progress of moral ideals through the centuries. He knows his audition as this book is geared toward people with piddling to no prior noesis of ideals. Relevant and controversial examples are given to either support or assault the ethical theories presented in this book.

Theories covered include Cultural Relativism, Utilitarianism, Kantian, Ethical Egoism, Social Contract, Virtue Ideals, and a few more. Rachels is easy to understand equally he constructs and deconstructs those theories in a way to allow the reader to determine which arguments to favor or disagree with. There is no perfect theory that sums up moral ethics, however Rachels mentions what elements would be needed to go close to the end-all-be-all theory.

This volume really got my wheels spinning as I was thinking of past choices and decisions I made and wondering which theory my decisions would have exist allocated to. I besides wondered how I could use the theories I learned for future determination making.

The Elements of Moral Philosophy is a light read in context to the material covered. Rachels adds an appendix for suggested further reading on each theory and concepts discussed if 1 were to want to swoop deeper into the minutia of moral philosophy.

...more

Don't bother. Rachels & Rachels does a fine job when explaining various upstanding theories (Kant, Rawls, Social Contract etc), which is why this has two stars instead of 1, simply you can notice this data from numerous other bookish works that are clearly less biased. The whole premise of this book, and the lens through which they critique several unlike theories, is based on an unsupported and logically shaky assumption in a single brief affiliate well-nigh the consummate separation of ethics and mor Don't carp. Rachels & Rachels does a fine task when explaining various ethical theories (Kant, Rawls, Social Contract etc), which is why this has 2 stars instead of ane, merely you tin detect this information from numerous other academic works that are clearly less biased. The whole premise of this book, and the lens through which they critique several different theories, is based on an unsupported and logically shaky assumption in a single cursory affiliate about the complete separation of ethics and morality, despite the fact that an atheistic view of the world is by far in the minority of historical feel.

Took this for a public administration graduate course - I agree it'due south necessary to exist able to communicate ethical decision making in public fields without relying on religion. Since the context of this book is not so narrowly focused on that subject area, I'g led to believe that the authors have allowed their personal views against religions of whatsoever kind to infiltrate the text so information technology is less the "elements" of moral philosophy and their "opinion" nearly moral philosophy.

...more

I am certainly no expert on the matter, nonetheless I practise believe that there'due south a valuable place for this book on the shelves of the wider public, in the sense of it being a starting point for the latter to be initiated on such a crucial and interesting topic, namely moral philosophy.

Information technology is a combination of a very brief, well-nigh compressed, history of philosophy with an piece of cake-to-grasp, pop way of conveying information. By no means should this book exist considered as a specific, in depth work of resear

I am certainly no expert on the affair, however I exercise believe that there'southward a valuable identify for this book on the shelves of the wider public, in the sense of it beingness a starting point for the latter to be initiated on such a crucial and interesting topic, namely moral philosophy.

It is a combination of a very cursory, nigh compressed, history of philosophy with an piece of cake-to-grasp, pop style of conveying information. By no ways should this book exist considered as a specific, in depth piece of work of research - i doubt that was the goal of the author in the first place - but, by and large, as an invitation for the mutual folk to dig deeper into such matters, urging it to develop and clarify the idea of reasoning based on logic as opposed to emotions, explore the basic theories of morals and, finally, depict a draft of full general ethical requirements and values which are held in mutual by all humanity.

To conclude, I would proper noun this a recommended read for a casual introduction to ethics.

...more

This gives a good overview of the various moral concepts. I like the mode information technology introduces each outset in all its glory, and then starts deconstructing and poking holes. I felt very confident in utilitarianism for a while--after all, how could y'all become incorrect seeking to create happiness for other people?--simply it makes a valid point that information technology's easy to spread yourself too remember in order to maximize the number of people happy. It tackles upstanding egoism with the logic of multiple reasons--not only personal d This gives a adept overview of the various moral concepts. I like the manner it introduces each first in all its glory, and so starts deconstructing and poking holes. I felt very confident in utilitarianism for a while--later all, how could y'all become wrong seeking to create happiness for other people?--but it makes a valid point that it'south piece of cake to spread yourself too think in order to maximize the number of people happy. It tackles ethical egoism with the logic of multiple reasons--not just personal desire and sometimes outside of personal desire entirely--and Kantism with arguments for the good of deceit. It's very informative, and it'southward the showtime time I've read a textbook with relevant examples. Not bad altogether. ...more

April 11, 2018 Mark Ballinger rated it really liked information technology

This was the overview of Western moral philosophy I've wanted, and I will have to read it again to outset to get a hold on the ideas.

This volume runs through several modes of moral philosophy, and challenges each of them. At every step, I could see the drawbacks of a line of reasoning while also non willing each fourth dimension to throw away the ideas.

As well, and this should be obvious, this is a book of Western thought. Nowhere is it even mentioned that there is an intellectual tradition outside of monotheisti

This was the overview of Western moral philosophy I've wanted, and I will have to read information technology again to commencement to get a concord on the ideas.

This book runs through several modes of moral philosophy, and challenges each of them. At every step, I could see the drawbacks of a line of reasoning while too not willing each time to throw away the ideas.

Also, and this should exist obvious, this is a book of Western thought. Nowhere is information technology fifty-fifty mentioned that there is an intellectual tradition outside of monotheistic or Greek moral reasoning. In particular, when there is an entire chapter on virtue and "right activity" and Buddhism doesn't even come up, something is missing.

...more

James Rachels, the distinguished American moral philosopher, was born in Columbus, Georgia, and graduated from nearby Mercer Academy in 1962. He received his Ph.D. in 1967 from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, studying under Professors Westward. D. Falk and E. M. Adams. He taught at the Academy of Richmond, New York University, the University of Miami, Duke Academy, and the Univers James Rachels, the distinguished American moral philosopher, was born in Columbus, Georgia, and graduated from nearby Mercer Academy in 1962. He received his Ph.D. in 1967 from the Academy of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, studying under Professors Due west. D. Falk and E. G. Adams. He taught at the University of Richmond, New York Academy, the University of Miami, Knuckles University, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where he spent the last twenty-half dozen years of his career. 1971 saw the publication of his groundbreaking anthology Moral Problems, which helped ignite the movement from pedagogy metaethics in American colleges to instruction concrete practical bug. Moral Problems sold 100,000 copies over three editions. In 1975, Rachels wrote "Active and Passive Euthanasia," arguing that the stardom so important in the police betwixt killing and letting die has no rational footing. Originally appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine, this essay has been reprinted 300 times and is a staple of undergraduate education. The End of Life (1986) broadened and deepened these ideas. Created from Animals (1990) argued that a Darwinian earth-view has widespread philosophical implications, including drastic implications for our handling of nonhuman animals. Can Ethics Provide Answers? (1997) was Rachels' commencement collection of papers; The Legacy of Socrates (2007) was his second. Rachels' textbook, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, is currently the best-selling book in philosophy. Before long before existence diagnosed with cancer, Rachels finished Problems from Philosophy, an introduction to his subject, published posthumously.

Over his career, Rachels wrote 6 books and 86 essays, edited 7 books and gave virtually 275 professional lectures. His work has been translated into Dutch, Korean, Norwegian, Italian, Japanese, Indonesian, Castilian, Portuguese, Chinese, and Serbo-Croatian. He is widely admired as a stylist; his essays and books are remarkably gratuitous of jargon and clutter. A major theme in his work is that reason tin resolve difficult moral issues. He has argued for moral vegetarianism and animate being rights, for affirmative activeness (including quotas), for the humanitarian utilize of euthanasia, and for the thought that parents owe as much moral consideration to other people'south children as to their own.

...more

Related Articles

Bound is finally here, thank the gods. That was a crude winter.   To celebrate the year'south greenest season, we've gathered hither the best new...

"Our triumphs seem hollow unless we have friends to share them, and our failures are made bearable past their understanding." — 4 likes

"The raw data of anthropologists can be misleading; it can brand the differences in values between cultures appear greater than they are...Information technology is but that life forces upon them choices that nosotros practise non have to make." — 1 likes

More than quotes…

Welcome back. Merely a moment while we sign y'all in to your Goodreads account.

mcgarryadelthe.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31794.The_Elements_of_Moral_Philosophy

Share this post