1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clear presentation of basic issues in ethics, January 13, 2011
Professor Almeder has written a very clear presentation to ethics or the study of moral acts. His exposition is one of the most understandable ones I've read. Almeder starts at the beginning, exploring the basic issue of "What Makes a Right Act Right?" He explores the many ethical traditions, like utilitarianism and hedonism, and presents objections as well as support for all. The book is balanced this way throughout, assisting the reader in coming to his or her own conclusions. Almeder also discusses the questions: Why SHould I be Moral? and What is Human Happiness. Again, with balance, clarity and thoroughness, Almeder introduces and discusses each question.
Almeder concludes that, no matter how you slice it, their is no way to come up with objective answers to any of the questions he explores. That is, there is no way, for example, to come up with an empirically verifiably proof that one should be moral. How he arrives at this is fascinating, particularly the explanation of how some of the questions asked can be meaningless. He does not leave us hanging, however, and offers Stoicism as a reasonable compromise that allows for a subjectively prudent approach to choosing between right and wrong.
I think one of the problems in this discussion is the division of acts into deontological and consequentialist, or whether a right act should be done based on rules or whether consequences are they key to whether an act is right. I think the reality is that people take into account both and therefore combine both philosophical aspects into their decisions - thus the expression of the white lie or the illustration of the necessary lie to a Nazi seeking Jews in hiding. I also think that the discussion is limited by looking at the long-term perspective only in the here and now. People who believe in an after-life consider the eternal perspective as well. Decisions made that would provide a short-term benefit with little harm in one's lifetime, are cast in a different light when considering this longer term.
Suggesting that a person could get away with immoral acts so long as everyone else is being moral is also very unrealistic. This was done in the discussion on "Why Should I be Moral?" It takes only a very few people acting immorally to create lots of chaos, including unhappines to the agent who thought it was only he acting immorally.
In terms of seeking happiness, I think one should look at not just how people can be happy but who is actually happy. Recent studies show that it is people who are married, religious, express gratitude and have strong social networks, among other things. It would be interesting to explore how these sign-posts of happiness correlate to acts.
Finally, Almeder notes that, when asked, most people tend to say they are happy, virtually regardless of circumstances. This would tend to weaken the case for looking at means to increase happiness, since mostly everyone seems to be happy anyway. One possible response to this is that perhaps simply posing the question, "Are you happy" has an effect on the responder that leads them to answer yes, a sort of Heisenberg principle or Hawthorne effect of psychology.
Overall, this book is a very accessible introduction to the main questions in ethics. Almeder has an unusual gift for writing about this very challenging topic in a clear and understandable manner (I could even follow the footnotes).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No