Customer Reviews

Ethics Without God

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

 

 

Difficult for a non-philosopher (i.e., "me"), but not too difficult to read with pleasure. Can a Christian also be a good person? The question is no mere provocation; there are serious philosophical problems in reconciling fidelity to God and ethical behavior. This book doesn't take on hate-mongers hiding behind Bibles, but rather the pure question of good and evil in people of honest motives.

His most memorable argument seems to go like this:

Ought we to obey the will of God? Of course we should, the believer answers. But why? Because He is almighty and powerful and will punish us if we do not obey? Well, then, obeying God is no better than obeying Stalin and Hitler. Or because he is always good? In that case, you invoke something within you, some discernment of "good," that you apply even to an order from the deity. So why not dispense with the cumbersome deity altogether, and focus on the internal discernment?

Nielsen provides a provacitve argument for the much disparaged claim that ethical behavior can, and indeed, must be produced outside of the repressive guilt factories of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Nielsen persuasively posits a code of ethical behavior that is based solely on the principle of the betterment of human life and makes a vital distinction between morals and ethics--a distinction lost upon both many religious leaders and aetheists today. This book, upon careful reading, will challenge both aetheists as well as religious people.

Since when was the objectivity of morals and values a fact? Last I heard, there was much debate concerning the subjectivity or objectivity of ethics, values, and morals. Claiming that there are objective morals, that it is a fact, and then slamming the book for this self-created truth is irrational.

Nielsen has always struck me as one of those philosophers whose thought is pellucid, whose writing style is admirably readable, whose breadth of knowledge is encyclopediac, and whose philosophical positions, while ably defended, are almost always wrong (he is, for example, one of the few philosophers I know who still wants to take the verificationist principle seriously). Whenever I read him, he provides me with an example of clarity to emulate and a philosophical challenge to meet. I'm grateful to him for both.

In this revised edition of a book that I first read in graduate school, Nielsen most substantial additions are a long opening chapter on natural law theory and sociological analyses of religion and a closing chapter in which he highlights his own secular ethics. Like many of his books, this one is largely composed of previously published articles. There tends, therefore, to be a certain amount of repetition, and some chapters (7 & 8, for example) seem to break the flow. But overall, the book is a good introduction to Nielsen's brand of atheistic ethics.

Nielsen rejects divine command theory as well as natural law tradition, and argues instead for a humanistic ethic that ultimately seems to be based on an analysis of natural needs. Certain conditions are necessary for leading a happy life: e.g., security, companionship, creative employment, and so on. These needs, because they're necessary conditions for happiness, are values, and they can serve as the basis of a secular ethics. It's never entirely clear to me from Nielsen's analysis why I should honor the furtherance of these needs in others, especially if their furtherance might step on my own toes. But he concludes that justice, or fairness, requires that I value for the other what I value for myself.

One suspicious move that Nielsen makes several times (especially in the final two chapters) is to conflate meaning with morality. This move is made, presumably, because there's some connection in Nielsen's mind between meaning, happiness, and value. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what the entailment is. Surely we can be happy in a meaningless context, and unhappy in a meaningful one. Similarly, my adherence to moral standards doesn't seem to be contingent on meaning. Otherwise, I would necessarily lose my bearings in chaotic situations.

Nielsen always makes one think, and this little book is one of his most interesting. Highly recommended.

Kai Nielsen's Ethics Without God addresses the relationship between God and the moral life. Nielsen argues that a viable ethical code and lifestyle can be obtained in the absence of a theistic framework. The author has been a frequent commentator on philosophical issues pertaining to religion and ethics.

Overall, I found this small book (approx. 100 pages) to be reasonably well written and argued. The discussion of ethical dilemmas from a consequentialist perspective was particularly well done and may be helpful to those new to this area. Nielsen is effective in highlighting some of the challenges, or at least potential challenges, inherent in a rigid deontological model of ethical decision making.

Despite its strengths, however, the book was in whole a disappointment. As noted by a previous reviewer the author despite his experience misses the key aspects of this issue. Instead, Nielsen focuses his effort on arguing a point that is largely uncontested - that being whether or not people can lead good lives without a belief in God. The obvious answer is that non-believers can lead as good or as bad a life as believers - this point is widely conceded by theistic philosophers.

A more interesting and salient question is whether objective ethical values exist in the absence of God, and if so how? In many ways Nielsen is a classic example of secular humanists who seek to lose God but cling to religious values. This is difficult to do - in the absence of an all-good God the belief in objective ethical values seems to be wishful thinking. It is hard to escape the conclusion that without such a foundation values are mere cultural adaptations along the lines of etiquette.

Nielsen is a capable thinker and it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on a more contentious aspect of humanistic ethics. As it was, I found the experience a bit like watching a good athlete run up and done the court without ever getting into the thick of the play - that is to say disappointing.

Overall, it is not a terrible book - aspects of it are quite well written - it just does not engage the issue.

2 stars

Weak Defense of Ethics Without God

In Ethics Without God, Kai Nielsen forcefully refutes the myth that one cannot be moral without believing in God. However, that is also not very interesting, for theistic philosophers generally would agree with him. Instead, theistic philosophers argue that only theism can (1) explain the fact that objective moral values exist, and (2) offer a reason for behaving morally. Unfortunately, while Nielsen does provide a minimal discussion of the latter claim, his discussion of the former claim is
virtually nonexistent. ...

What Nielsen writes in this book would be generally true if God did not exist. We would have to rely on reason to figure out ethical conduct. This depends though on what is meant by ethical conduct. What may seem good to one person or group of people may not be good for others. For instance lets take the example of Adolf Hitler, a man many believe was the incarnation of evil. What is not very well known in the west is the nazi side of the story. The german people after World War one, were under severe suffering from other countries. Many people were unemployed and there was great hunger. This seemed like an unjust punishment to many in germany,otherwise Hitler could have never ascended to power. Hitler believed that the jews were responsible for the creation of communism and they were against mankind in general(read the new testament). So in Hitlers mind he had a good reason to exterminate the jews and to fight back against the oppressors. This is why he was revered in Germany. But doesn't Nielsen say that if one has good reasons for doing something he can do whatever he likes? To Hitler and the nazis the destruction of the jews and destroying their enemies were good reasons. Was Hitler then really evil incarnate or a messiah? One mans vision of justice is another mans nightmare. The arguments in this book can be used to justify pretty much anything that is considered evil. If a man has a good reason to kill another man and rape his wife and daughters, then so be it. If a group of producers want to make a lot of porn films and they come up with the good reason that no one gets hurt, then why not? If buisness wants to turn you into a slave working for low wages and charging insane prices for you to eat and survive and they have a good reason... go for it. As long as you have a good reason, you can justify any amount of evil. Isn't that what happened in the past and repeating itself now? With all the "good" reasons offered today is it any wonder why things are so screwed up? How true the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't believe Nielsen is right about Gods existence. But if he is... get ready for the nightmares.

This book can be said to have already failed the test of time, even though the test in this instance is not even twenty years in length.

Nielsen claims on p. 12 that "God or no God, wife beating ... is vile." Yet, we now know that people like Nielsen balk at this statement when Muslims engage in wife beating. Apparently, it is all right to beat your wife (or wives) if you are Muslim. Or else it is still vile, but it is also vile to tell Muslims that it is vile, which is surely a strange consequence for an ethicist.

Another problematic statement of Nielsen's is on p. 14, where he claims that "the Scandinavian countries (all of them) are ... the most secularized societies we have today, yet they are all without exception, flourishing, open societies with firm, valid democratic traditions." However, there is considerable doubt as to whether Sweden and Norway will remain secular and democratic since they seem headed to joining the umma and having shari'a imposed on them. And even if that extreme doesn't happen, it is surely true that the disparities between birth rates of native Scandinavians and immigrant Muslims will eventually make these countries much less secular as time goes on. Is it an iron law of human nature that democratic, secular societies will eventually become religious? Apparently. Why bother constructing them, then?

Finally, one ideally ought to judge a book on its contents and not its author. But we don't live in an ideal world. Life is short, and one must pick carefully what one reads and doesn't read. A book on ethics by someone who is not particularly ethical is not something that I would recommend. This book was published just when the job situation in academia, which was already bad, turned into a crisis. So, how did Nielsen, an academic, respond to that crisis? He responded to it just as most other leftist academics did, by ignoring it. When action by him and others like him could have made a difference, he chose to do nothing. He wouldn't even write about it. He just ignored it.

Also, Nielsen is an academic and a socialist. Now, academia is very far from being a socialist paradise, and in fact isn't even a meritocracy. It's more like an aristocracy or even a caste system. What has Nielsen done to make academia run along socialist lines? Nothing, of course. Plus, I suspect he would resist socialism in academia. At the very least, socialism in academia would mean that publishing opportunities would be distributed to everyone, which would further mean that no one would get to publish very much (since there are so few venues and so few articles published in those venues). There is nothing to suggest that Nielsen, with his many publications, would approve of this. If he does approve, then let him say so in print.

On the whole, this book is a waste of time.