Customer Reviews

Actual Ethics

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

According to the first chapter, James Otterson wrote Actual Ethics as something of a counterpoint to Peter Singer's wildly popular and influential Practical Ethics. In Practical Ethics, Singer advocates a very utilitarian approach to ethics that is strongly in favor of income redistribution as a way to shift some wealth from those who have a lot to those who have a little. In Actual Ethics, Otterson starts out with a very different ethical framework - Kantian ethics, where individuals are treated always as ends and never simply as means to other ends - in order to argue that such redistribution violates ethics by seeing some as means to the ends of others. In short, Otterson argues that the most just society is that which leaves everyone free to pursue their own well-being and where the state's only legitimate role is to set up and maintain a system conducive to this individuality.

I am going to give this book four stars with some stipulations. The book is a very good indtroduction to a certain type of libertarian ethics. Like Singer's Practical Ethics, this book takes what can be a very complicated and abstruse subject and makes it very accessible. So, as an introduction to ethics (what Otterson intended), the book does a very good job. Otterson presents his case in a very clear way and is always humble about it, keeping in mind that it is his job to persuade rather than accepting it as a given that readers should simply take his lines uncritically. Otterson is obviously well read and each chapter includes, at its end, a helpful list of all sources the chapter used so that interested readers might dig up some good primary sources.

As a philosophical work, the book is okay but just okay. Even as a fellow libertarian sympathetic to many of Otterson's conclusions - the abolution of income redistribution, govenrment-funded education, etc. - I found myself sometimes frustrated with Otterson's claims and lack of thoroughness in dealing with possible objections. For instance, I am a bit skeptical of Otterson's central idea that the only just ethic is one which treats all people as ends rather than means. Not that we should not do this, but the very capitalism Otterson defends does not always do this. Employers see employers as means, employees see employers as means, producers see consumers as means (to more revenue) and consumers see producers as means (of getting products and services). The entire process of bargaining (getting the most from the other for as little expenditure as possible) involves seeing the other as a means to get what you want for as little cost as necessary. I could be wrong, but that Otterson did not even entertain this objection floored me.

Neither did Otterson consider the idea that "Respecting the individual" (a) may entail more than the negative liberty of leaving her free to make decisions for herself, but (b) may not be a value that overrides all other consdierations in every case. The obvious argument in favor of public education is that we may accept small incursions into taxpayers' liberty over their money in order to enhance each individual's ability to exercise judgment by educating them at public expense. Otterson's argument, at all times, seems to reduce to pointing out that doing this violates individual sovereignty and disrespects the individual (to which the utilitarian replies that they've already admitted that it does, but that the benefits outweigh the costs. (In fact, a plausible argument could be made that as education enhances one's ability to live independently, the state is respecting individuality by helping children cultivate it.) Otterson doesn't show oterwise and, as such, talks past his opponents.)

There are several other areas where I think that Otterson did not deal with possible objections as well as he might have (and were I not already sympathetic to Otterson's conclusions, I would have remained unconvinced). But I give this book four stars because I think it is unfair to hold books meant as introductions to a position TOO accountable for lack of rigor. If you are new to the libertarian position or want a good counterweight to Singer's Practical Ethics, this book is a good one that will be sure to provoke much thought and discussion.

I will leave with a reccomendation: Otterson uses a Kantian framework to defend libertarianism, but it can be as easily defended by a utilitarian framework (that libertarianism is moral because it works the best in effect). The interested reader should check out Principles For A Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty With The Common Good and, to see libertarianism in application, check out Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One

If I could persuade everyone I know to read one book of my choice it would be Actual Ethics by James Otteson.

This book argues that in order for a person to be happy one must develop the ability to make good decisions for oneself. Otteson builds up his argument in small, but important steps. These steps allow him to answer complicated and interesting questions in a convincing way.

Otteson asks, what type of government should we have such that people are best able to develop good judgement. He goes on to explain why a system of government that allows for great deal of individual freedom, in which people can learn from their mistakes and be rewarded by their good decisions, is one that allows individuals the potential to be their happiest. His arguments are based on classical liberal ideas drawn heavily from Aristotle, David Hume, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Stuart Mill and Albert Jay Nock.

In this book Otteson does something that is very challenging to do (I believe) - he answers fundamental, and difficult to answer questions in a straight forward and easy to understand way - questions whose answers have eluded many for thousands of years. I encourage you to read the first few pages to get a feel for Otteson's easy-to-follow-along writing style. Otteson answers questions that I believe almost everyone is curious about and that have a significant impact on one's life. For example, what action should one take to transfer wealth from wealthy to poor people? Does that action depend on whether those wealthy and poor people are near or far from each other? The way Otteson answers these questions will help you next time these conversations come up at the dinner table or the meeting table.

This book speaks to me because Otteson's arguments aren't based on abstract concepts such as natural rights, or God-given rights which seem to appear out of thin air. Rather his arguments are based on what works - sometimes called evidence or data. For example, Otteson argues that unless we learn otherwise, gays should be allowed to marry because evidence shows that people do best when they are married. Similarly he argues that we should be very cautious about allowing gay couples to adopt children because evidence shows that children do best when raised by a married man and woman, and because we don't yet have enough evidence showing how well children turn out when raised by gay parents. Whether to allow a particular gay couple to adopt a child depends on the child's alternatives and whether or not the gay couple would provide the best possible home for the child given the child's alternative homes. The decision to allow a particular gay couple to adopt a child should be made by those close to the child and close to the gay couple, not by some distant government employee or millions of distant voters. Otteson takes on a number of questions like this and he answers them all very well.

In each of these arguments Otteson states what role government should play in order to accomplish a certain goal. He argues, essentially what Thomas Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence - that government's role is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. Anything more will do more harm than good.

I disagree with Otteson on what type of government we should have, but that doesn't stop me from realizing that this book strengthens my argument for promoting the government that I prefer. Whether you're on the left or the right, mildly libertarian or libertarian anarchist, I think you'll get a lot of out of this great book, first because it will likely improve your life by helping you see that you should let those around you make decisions for themselves. As Otteson mentions, each person's life is like an experiment in which one gets to find out what makes himself happiest.

This book will also likely help you form better opinions of what type of government you prefer, and if you already know what type of government you prefer this book can help you strengthen those views and communicate them in a more persuasive way. For those who prefer more government, you will be hard pressed to successfully counter Otteson's classical liberal arguments - if you can, good for you. If you're a voluntarist (libertarian anarchist), this is still a great book to give to those close to you because it will help you move others closer to your view. In many ways this is a self-help book, because its style of philosophy, even though extremely sophisticated, is very practical and valuable.

I would really love it if more people read this book. Please buy a copy, new or used, read it and tell your friends about it.