Customer Reviews

Philosophical Ethics: An Historical And Contemporary Introduction (Dimensions of Philosophy Series)

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

 

 

Darwall has come up with a fairly interesting way to introduce topics in both meta-ethics and normative ethics. A signal virtue of this book is that it provides an introduction to the history of ethical theory as well as contemporary issues in meta-ethics and normative ethics.

The book begins with a section on meta-ethics; this section is written as a philosophical textbook. It consists of several short chapters, each of which is concerned with one of the positions that has been defended in contemporary meta-ethics. The following positions are discussed: naturalist realism, theological voluntarism, ideal observer theories, noncognitivism, error theories, relativism, and intuitionism. As anyone familiar with work of this sort will know, each of these chapters includes a brief introduction to the main elements of a position and analysis of a few objections to that position. Darwall keeps this chapters short--most are between five and ten pages--and he does so by writing very compressed prose. He manages to at least mention most of the important objections to these views, and he do so in such a concise manner by limiting his discussion of most of these objections to merely a paragraph or two. Needless to say, this leaves a lot to be said. But it has its benefits, too. It makes the book an excellent reference book on these particular views, as one can pick up the book and review the main objections to some theory in only a few minutes. Moreover, it leaves the beginner with something to think about. He or she is left to think about the plausibility of these views, and the force of the objections to them, without having to work through pages and pages of summary of the literature on these issues.

In short, the chapters of the book's first section are about what you would expect from good introductory lectures on these topics: they provide you with the basic elements of the view and some sense of its strenghts and weaknesses.

The second section of the book is an introduction to issues in normative ethics. But the introduction here is different from the introduction to meta-ethics in that it is historical in character. Rather than devoting an individual chapter to each view that is popular in the contemporary literature, Darwall presents and analyzes the views of famous figures in the history of ethics. But this isn't exactly an introduction to the history of ethics, either; it's a series of extended discussions of major historical figures who provide paradigmatic examples of the main positions in normative ethics. Kant is discussed as an example of deontology, Mill as an example of consequentialism, Hobbes as an example of contractualism, Aristotle as an example of virtue theory, and Nietzsche as an example of someone skeptical of the very notion of morality.

So Darwall is concerned with general outlines of these thinkers views and their contemporary relevance, and not with their views as historical relics or as examples of historical trends in ethical thought. What is valuable about this way of approaching normative ethics is that it reflects that fact that historically important figures in philosophy aren't of interest only to historians of the subject; some of their views are genuine competitors in the current debate, and more current theories can be understood as developing in response to objections to the views of these earlier figures.

This is an excellent book for those approaching normative ethics and meta-ethics for the first time, and I think it would also serve as a useful resource for those coming to it with prior knowledge of the subject. Having some background in philosophy (though not necessarily in ethics) wouldn't hurt readers of this book, but I doubt that it's necessary.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Ethics. Stephen Darwall, one of the leading ethicists in philosophy today provides in his book "Philosophical Ethics" a great way to learn about the myriad field of ethics and morality. First, the book has a great glossary on the philosophical terms used in the field, this is invaluable! Second, Darwall sets up the various ethical schools of thought in the first have of the book, then in the second half, he explains the ideas of philosophical moralists; such as, Hobbes, Mill, Kant, Nietzsche, and Aristotle, in that order. This progression works well. Below is some of Darwall's explanation of the field of ethics, which will give the reader a sense of his writing style.

Ethics is "moral philosophy," a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility.

It is divided into three primary areas:

1. Applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).

2. Ethical theory the "why" questions general and abstract principles that would let us separate right actions from wrong actions, good and bad character traits virtues, no sharp distinctions between applied ethics and ethical theory here. Both of these are known as:

Normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values).

3.Meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics) comes out of metaphysics, and epistemology.

Ethics has three parts, the most concrete is Applied Ethics:

1. Applied ethics
Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. Such as business ethics, and medical ethics focused on real world questions what is "right" and "wrong." The lines of distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion can be seen as an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. However, it can also depend on more general normative principles, such as possible rights of self-rule and right to life, principles that are often litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on meta-ethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?", and "what kinds of beings have rights?"

Another concept, which blurs ethics, is moral luck. A drunk driver may safely reach home without injuring anyone, or he might accidentally kill a child who runs out into the street while he is driving home. The action of driving while drunk is usually seen as equally wrong in each case, but its dependence on chance affects the degree to which the driver is held responsible.

Specific questions
Applied ethics is used in determining public policy. For example, the following would be questions of applied ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" and "Do animals have rights as well?"

A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration -- in fact, no common assumptions of all participants--so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. However, not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

Often, questions of applied ethics take legal or political form before they are interpreted in frameworks of normative ethics. The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights of 1948 and the Global Green Charter of 2001 are two such examples.

2. Normative ethics
While normative ethics addresses such questions as "Which things are (morally) good and bad?" and "What should we do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical norms - moral standards that tell us how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articulating the character or good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others. These have traditionally been the three main approaches to normative ethics.

3. Meta-ethics is not part of ethics or value theory at all but what people call Meta-ethics. Meta-ethics are questions that come out of epistemology and metaphysics that have to do with ethics that are foundational to ethics, things like whether the wrongness of an action is part of the reality or a fundamental part of the universe or whether it is something that comes from us, that is a metaphysical question. How we know setting the cat on fire that is an epistemological question.

Meta-ethics addresses the question "What is (moral) goodness?" seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.

This is a brief synopsis of Darwall's way of explaining the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is a more general term the way he uses his vocabulary ethics is concerned with how we should live, generally concerned with what we should do. Morality refers to the idea that certain actions are right certain actions are wrong it is much more specific than the more general question about what we should do or how we should do it. If you are a person that takes morality seriously, than you are going to think that morality is a big part of ethics. A big part of the answer to how we should live is that we should do things that are right and nothings that are wrong. Nevertheless, there are some people who do ethics without really talking about morality at all like Aristotle. Aristotle talks about what kind of person you should be, first of all that is the primary question he is interested in, he wants to talk about virtue and vice, good character traits and bad character traits. Then he has an idea about what sort of actions you ought to do, you ought to do whatever a virtuous person ought to do. He doesn't talk about it in terms of right or wrong action. Talking about right and wrong is legalistic kind of talk talking about forbidden actions this is moralistic talk. Just like studying law, people talk about actions, obligatory, permissible, and forbidden. People who take virtues as the primary notion in ethics theory typically don't think about actions in these kind of legalistic ways. Instead, is this what a virtuous person would do, is this courageous, is this generous, not are you allowed to do it.

Darwall argues that many of the terms in philosophy do not have agreed upon definitions. Some philosophers say there is no difference between ethics and morality; others have different ways of drawing the distinction. Read the book to find out more.

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, and ethics.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Ethics. Stephen Darwall, one of the leading ethicists in philosophy today provides in his book "Philosophical Ethics" a great way to learn about the myriad field of ethics and morality. First, the book has a great glossary on the philosophical terms used in the field, this is invaluable! Second, Darwall sets up the various ethical schools of thought in the first have of the book, then in the second half, he explains the ideas of philosophical moralists; such as, Hobbes, Mill, Kant, Nietzsche, and Aristotle, in that order. This progression works well. Below is some of Darwall's explanation of the field of ethics, which will give the reader a sense of his writing style.

Ethics is "moral philosophy," a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility.

It is divided into three primary areas:

1. Applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).

2. Ethical theory the "why" questions general and abstract principles that would let us separate right actions from wrong actions, good and bad character traits virtues, no sharp distinctions between applied ethics and ethical theory here. Both of these are known as:

Normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values).

3.Meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics) comes out of metaphysics, and epistemology.

Ethics has three parts, the most concrete is Applied Ethics:

1. Applied ethics
Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. Such as business ethics, and medical ethics focused on real world questions what is "right" and "wrong." The lines of distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion can be seen as an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. However, it can also depend on more general normative principles, such as possible rights of self-rule and right to life, principles that are often litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on meta-ethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?", and "what kinds of beings have rights?"

Another concept, which blurs ethics, is moral luck. A drunk driver may safely reach home without injuring anyone, or he might accidentally kill a child who runs out into the street while he is driving home. The action of driving while drunk is usually seen as equally wrong in each case, but its dependence on chance affects the degree to which the driver is held responsible.

Specific questions
Applied ethics is used in determining public policy. For example, the following would be questions of applied ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" and "Do animals have rights as well?"

A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration -- in fact, no common assumptions of all participants--so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. However, not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

Often, questions of applied ethics take legal or political form before they are interpreted in frameworks of normative ethics. The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights of 1948 and the Global Green Charter of 2001 are two such examples.

2. Normative ethics
While normative ethics addresses such questions as "Which things are (morally) good and bad?" and "What should we do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical norms - moral standards that tell us how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articulating the character or good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others. These have traditionally been the three main approaches to normative ethics.

3. Meta-ethics is not part of ethics or value theory at all but what people call Meta-ethics. Meta-ethics are questions that come out of epistemology and metaphysics that have to do with ethics that are foundational to ethics, things like whether the wrongness of an action is part of the reality or a fundamental part of the universe or whether it is something that comes from us, that is a metaphysical question. How we know setting the cat on fire that is an epistemological question.

Meta-ethics addresses the question "What is (moral) goodness?" seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.

This is a brief synopsis of Darwall's way of explaining the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is a more general term the way he uses his vocabulary ethics is concerned with how we should live, generally concerned with what we should do. Morality refers to the idea that certain actions are right certain actions are wrong it is much more specific than the more general question about what we should do or how we should do it. If you are a person that takes morality seriously, than you are going to think that morality is a big part of ethics. A big part of the answer to how we should live is that we should do things that are right and nothings that are wrong. Nevertheless, there are some people who do ethics without really talking about morality at all like Aristotle. Aristotle talks about what kind of person you should be, first of all that is the primary question he is interested in, he wants to talk about virtue and vice, good character traits and bad character traits. Then he has an idea about what sort of actions you ought to do, you ought to do whatever a virtuous person ought to do. He doesn't talk about it in terms of right or wrong action. Talking about right and wrong is legalistic kind of talk talking about forbidden actions this is moralistic talk. Just like studying law, people talk about actions, obligatory, permissible, and forbidden. People who take virtues as the primary notion in ethics theory typically don't think about actions in these kind of legalistic ways. Instead, is this what a virtuous person would do, is this courageous, is this generous, not are you allowed to do it.

Darwall argues that many of the terms in philosophy do not have agreed upon definitions. Some philosophers say there is no difference between ethics and morality; others have different ways of drawing the distinction. Read the book to find out more.

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, and ethics.

After a hundred pages of categorizations and terms and concepts that repeatedly fail to meet "Hume's challenge," you'll wonder why anyone is sitting around a poker table where someone called the bluff and made off with the pot three centuries ago. Students of social sciences and applied ethics, stay away at all costs. If this is on a grad school syllabus, ask the professor if you can go break rocks or polish toilets for a week instead, or just tell him he can "borrow" some of your research.