What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fundamentals of Ethics
In The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau employs a uniquely engaging writing style to introduce students to the essential ideas of moral philosophy. Offering more comprehensive coverage of the good life, normative ethics, and metaethics than any other text of its kind, this
book also addresses issues that are often omitted from other texts, such as the doctrine of doing and allowing, the doctrine of double effect, ethical particularism, the desire-satisfaction theory of well-being, and moral error theory. Shafer-Landau carefully reconstructs and analyzes dozens of
arguments in depth, at a level that is understandable to students with no prior philosophical background. Ideal for courses in introductory ethics and contemporary moral problems, this book can be used as a stand-alone text or with the author's companion reader, The Ethical Fundamental
Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, which offers original readings exploring the topics covered in The Fundamentals of Ethics.
book also addresses issues that are often omitted from other texts, such as the doctrine of doing and allowing, the doctrine of double effect, ethical particularism, the desire-satisfaction theory of well-being, and moral error theory. Shafer-Landau carefully reconstructs and analyzes dozens of
arguments in depth, at a level that is understandable to students with no prior philosophical background. Ideal for courses in introductory ethics and contemporary moral problems, this book can be used as a stand-alone text or with the author's companion reader, The Ethical Fundamental
Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, which offers original readings exploring the topics covered in The Fundamentals of Ethics.
322 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
June 9, 2012
I used this book for an class on contemporary moral issues and I don't think I am going to assign it again. Here is why:
- in general, the book stays too much on the surface, quickly presenting a position and then moving to a long list of objections against it. I (and my students) would have preferred a more in-depth treatment of fewer issues.
- consequently, some difficult issues are presented in a way that don't benefit anyone. E.g. S-L's treatment of moral motivation or his discussion of how Kant would respond to the amoralist. He treats these subjects in a page or two, and all that happens is that students shrug their shoulders and move on. Leave it out or have a longer section on it.
- the coverage of natural law theory is way too dumbed down and makes the theory look totally stupid. Even if you don't agree with natural law theory, it is more complicated and deserves a fairer treatment
- in the first section on well-being, S-L discusses a very implausible version of hedonism and let's it then fail. He only mentions in a footnote that Aristotle has a different understanding of happiness and never again comes back to it. Please! Concluding the section, S-L states that an objective list-theory is probably the most convincing candidate, but never explains why or how. Please!
- too few examples; those he uses are not very appealing. No comparison to authors like Sandel (e.g. in his 'Justice', a great introduction to pol phil and public policy)
- on the bright side, I liked the fact that the book comes with Power Point presentations and a test bank. This has saved me a lot of time
- the introductory treatment of how arguments in ethics can fail was quite nice
- in general, the book stays too much on the surface, quickly presenting a position and then moving to a long list of objections against it. I (and my students) would have preferred a more in-depth treatment of fewer issues.
- consequently, some difficult issues are presented in a way that don't benefit anyone. E.g. S-L's treatment of moral motivation or his discussion of how Kant would respond to the amoralist. He treats these subjects in a page or two, and all that happens is that students shrug their shoulders and move on. Leave it out or have a longer section on it.
- the coverage of natural law theory is way too dumbed down and makes the theory look totally stupid. Even if you don't agree with natural law theory, it is more complicated and deserves a fairer treatment
- in the first section on well-being, S-L discusses a very implausible version of hedonism and let's it then fail. He only mentions in a footnote that Aristotle has a different understanding of happiness and never again comes back to it. Please! Concluding the section, S-L states that an objective list-theory is probably the most convincing candidate, but never explains why or how. Please!
- too few examples; those he uses are not very appealing. No comparison to authors like Sandel (e.g. in his 'Justice', a great introduction to pol phil and public policy)
- on the bright side, I liked the fact that the book comes with Power Point presentations and a test bank. This has saved me a lot of time
- the introductory treatment of how arguments in ethics can fail was quite nice
June 6, 2020
Without reading other reviews for this book, I probably would have given it 4 stars. The hate this book is receiving is unjust. It's actually almost comical because a bunch of people reading it - presumably interested in philosophy - cannot produce a rational review. The bottom line is this book does exactly what it intends to do. It's an overview; a primer. It's not supposed to take a deep dive down any branch of ethics. The author covers the basic premises of the main branches of ethics and presents their counter arguments. Most importantly, since this book is a primer, the author provides plenty of additional reading for each branch.
May 2, 2015
Reading over the reviews of those who dislike this book and yet offer no other books on ethics as ones they favor makes me wonder why people waste their breath and time to complain about a book they chose to read in the first place. It's a good introduction to ethics with excellent use of vocabulary. Some of the syllogistic arguments may seem as contrived as a Socratic dialogue, but unless the reader can create better arguments to offer as examples, it becomes a case of put up or shut up. Other than a handful of typos scattered in the first edition, I find the text cogent and intelligent. Maybe those who complain may find this site a great place for themselves to vent to others and try in vain to look smarter than the author. It is laughable to read many of the complaints hurled at this book on Goodreads. It does not diminish the value of the book or the understanding the author, Russ Shafer-Landau, has in regards to ethical objectivity, which is the running thread guiding most of the chapters in the text. Some concepts are argued with more force than others, as in the case of Virtue Theory, but overall, some theories need less argumentation to refute. I applaud Russ Shafer-Landau and hope one day to meet him in person to discuss moral skepticism and moral naturalism. I do feel that the last chaper on Ten Arguments Against Moral Objectivity should actually be the Foreword after the Introduction at the beginning of the book. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did, as I savored it during my lunch breaks for nearly 15 months, but I look forward to another book filling that space-time when I get to read with little interruption. And the bibliography itself is worth the time to figure out which ethics book will explain what you seek to understand, to know, and to implement in the real world.
Read
November 8, 2024Thanks school dat ik nu misschien mijn Goodreads goal haal
October 28, 2010
This book sucks. The author talks too colloquially, which makes the chapters skip along, it's true, but also makes you struggle through a lot of slang language where the author is trying to be hip. The author also makes outrageous assumptions, and supports or denies philosophical theories based on the strength of his own assumptions and morals. If you ever wondered what it would be like if Socrates had actually answered any questions, this is it. However, having someone tell you what to think is less satisfying than it would seem.
April 6, 2024
(Read the 6th edition but it’s not on goodreads yet)
Very good introduction to different ethical theories! Very accessible, fun, and easy to read. It’s not exactly what I was expecting to use for an academic course because of its more casual style, but it was great. Its explanations of theories is very surface level, so I would recommend this only if you want to learn the basics or read a bit more passively.
Very good introduction to different ethical theories! Very accessible, fun, and easy to read. It’s not exactly what I was expecting to use for an academic course because of its more casual style, but it was great. Its explanations of theories is very surface level, so I would recommend this only if you want to learn the basics or read a bit more passively.
July 27, 2022
Definitely, one of the better introductions to ethics I've read till date. Clearly explains a lot of complicated concepts and that's saying something for an intro.
October 7, 2023
3.5 really well written but so really boring when you read the whole thing in one go. would be perfect for reference though
January 14, 2021
Grateful for Shafer-Landau’s brevity and approachability. I was looking for an entry level text to help me more broadly understand moral philosophy, and enjoyed my time in this. Is it any good? I have no idea; but it made me think, posed good questions, and usually did a good job explaining both the arguments for and against the views presented. Wish that the sections on metaethics went a bit deeper, but it’s a primer.
June 8, 2022
This was one of the primary references for an introduction to ethics university course I took in Spring 2022. We read about 2/3 as part of the course and I read the remaining chapters after the course completed. I found this book to be easy to read with arguments very carefully laid out. It was pretty easy to get the basic grasp of foundational theories in ethics from this textbook. I liked the book enough that I’ll keep an eye out for other texts by this author in the future.
May 18, 2020
I think it was problematic how the book was divided into chapter promoting an idea and practices disproving it. Yes, it was nice to be guided along and see both sides of the coin, but I think that in the "con" chapter instead of just showing some negative sides of the idea, it made it completely lose credibility. While reading I had the feeling of being constantly shepherded to arrive at the obvious conclusion and didn't sit well with me, especially because it's a philosophy book. The whole point of philosophy is think by yourself, using your own reasoning and coming at your own conclusion. This book doesn't let you do that. It is as biased as a random internet page. I won't dwell in it, but I'll just briefly mention that I think I would have made have a better grasp of the ideas if the author provided some historical context (was it some specific event that made this philosophy fell out of popularity, or was it right way that the critics emerged?) and names/philosopher who supported (or were against) these ideas, and also at least some excerpt because I would like to hear from the philosopher that came up with these ideas; I want to hear them defending the ideas and I want to hear from the critics themselves what the have to say against it.
November 9, 2018
Pro: The author gives definitions, scenarios, and arguments for multiple ethical theories and approaches. In the back of the book, a list of definitions can be located. A list of suggested books can also be found for each of the topics discussed.
Con: The writer moves very quickly from one topic to another. This book is meant to be a brief introduction to numerous areas in ethics. So, the reader's comprehension on each area may be very weak by the end. Some readers may dislike that the author provides his own personal views. I personally did not like that most of the writing is an argument against each perspective in ethics.
Who is this for? If you want to dip your toe into ethics this may be for you. I would recommend reading more afterward since this book does not go into depth.
Con: The writer moves very quickly from one topic to another. This book is meant to be a brief introduction to numerous areas in ethics. So, the reader's comprehension on each area may be very weak by the end. Some readers may dislike that the author provides his own personal views. I personally did not like that most of the writing is an argument against each perspective in ethics.
Who is this for? If you want to dip your toe into ethics this may be for you. I would recommend reading more afterward since this book does not go into depth.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 4, 2020
I think this is a great book for what it is. Again its the "fundamentals" of ethics not an inept overview of the many theories it covers. I think the pro-con approach he has is actually efficient in a way. it instantly covers the issues of every concept and keeps you thinking about it. Many of the bad reviews of this book talk about the its lack of depth when this is just the surface and that's all it's supposed to be. Overall good read and great for beginners of understanding ethics
April 12, 2022
First, the good:
The author gives a solid overview of the more noteworthy ethical theories, along with positives, negatives, and some of the ways that they interact with each other.
We all have our biases and Russ Shafer-Landau is no exception, but I didn't find him overly biased here, contrary to the claims made in some other reviews. In fact, I couldn't tell you which ethical theory he personally aligns with based on reading this text (though I could tell you a few that he does not align with).
The critiques presented against all forms of ethical relativism do expose it as completely incoherent, but that's not the author's fault. He didn't create any of those arguments. Unfortunately, this is hard to swallow for the people who think "doing philosophy" is just making up a theory out of thin air. Especially the section that points out that someone's right to have an opinion doesn't mean that their opinion is equally plausible.
Now for the bad:
I do think his positive and negative portrayal of certain positions were weak. For instance, in one of the earlier chapters, he basically dismisses Plato's entire ethics based on a very poor argument about something said in The Republic.
I don't see how someone could read a dialogue like the Gorgias, where Plato fleshes out the same argument, and think you can wiggle out of his (or Socrates') critiques so easily. It's not simply a matter of whether a person can sleep at night, contrary to the author's very reductionist claims.
Ironically, he later refers to ethical arguments presented by or related to Platonic dialogues, and I'm not just talking about his references to the Euthyphro dilemma.
I'm not a psychological egoist nor even sympathetic to the position, but I thought his arguments against it were quite weak as well and didn't seem to give proper credit to the level of critique they were making.
On the flip side, his "positive" arguments in the Morality and Religion chapter were basically non-existent. Again I must point out some irony here, being that this textbook itself is a strong evidence for the "impossibility of the contrary" argument, since the author admits on numerous occasions that all of the secular ethical theories presented have huge flaws that philosophers can't figure out how to solve.
In response, the secular thinker will of course point to the things they disagree with about a particular religion's ethics, but without a basis for ethics or even a coherent ethical system, what exactly are these critiques based on?
The author also makes the argument that disagreement over religious texts and how to interpret them is a knock against religion-based morality. Yet in the final chapter, he points out how that same argument doesn't actually work against moral objectivism.
Again, isn't this book itself proof that there is mass disagreement about ethics and how to apply them?
Overall, I think the above issues I have with the text all kind of link back to a single fundamental inconsistency, in that Shafer-Landau at times seems to acknowledge and utilize the connection between metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. And at others, his arguments seem to be based in ignoring that very same connection.
He tries to reduce certain positions, including Platonism, religion, and psychological egoism, to mere materialist claims, when he knows they rely on metaphysical foundations. But then he uses metaphysics and epistemology to critique other positions.
But I still think the book is a solid introduction to the topics covered. And while I would likely disagree strongly with the author on some things, I will reiterate what I said earlier, in that I didn't find him overly biased.
The author gives a solid overview of the more noteworthy ethical theories, along with positives, negatives, and some of the ways that they interact with each other.
We all have our biases and Russ Shafer-Landau is no exception, but I didn't find him overly biased here, contrary to the claims made in some other reviews. In fact, I couldn't tell you which ethical theory he personally aligns with based on reading this text (though I could tell you a few that he does not align with).
The critiques presented against all forms of ethical relativism do expose it as completely incoherent, but that's not the author's fault. He didn't create any of those arguments. Unfortunately, this is hard to swallow for the people who think "doing philosophy" is just making up a theory out of thin air. Especially the section that points out that someone's right to have an opinion doesn't mean that their opinion is equally plausible.
Now for the bad:
I do think his positive and negative portrayal of certain positions were weak. For instance, in one of the earlier chapters, he basically dismisses Plato's entire ethics based on a very poor argument about something said in The Republic.
I don't see how someone could read a dialogue like the Gorgias, where Plato fleshes out the same argument, and think you can wiggle out of his (or Socrates') critiques so easily. It's not simply a matter of whether a person can sleep at night, contrary to the author's very reductionist claims.
Ironically, he later refers to ethical arguments presented by or related to Platonic dialogues, and I'm not just talking about his references to the Euthyphro dilemma.
I'm not a psychological egoist nor even sympathetic to the position, but I thought his arguments against it were quite weak as well and didn't seem to give proper credit to the level of critique they were making.
On the flip side, his "positive" arguments in the Morality and Religion chapter were basically non-existent. Again I must point out some irony here, being that this textbook itself is a strong evidence for the "impossibility of the contrary" argument, since the author admits on numerous occasions that all of the secular ethical theories presented have huge flaws that philosophers can't figure out how to solve.
In response, the secular thinker will of course point to the things they disagree with about a particular religion's ethics, but without a basis for ethics or even a coherent ethical system, what exactly are these critiques based on?
The author also makes the argument that disagreement over religious texts and how to interpret them is a knock against religion-based morality. Yet in the final chapter, he points out how that same argument doesn't actually work against moral objectivism.
Again, isn't this book itself proof that there is mass disagreement about ethics and how to apply them?
Overall, I think the above issues I have with the text all kind of link back to a single fundamental inconsistency, in that Shafer-Landau at times seems to acknowledge and utilize the connection between metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. And at others, his arguments seem to be based in ignoring that very same connection.
He tries to reduce certain positions, including Platonism, religion, and psychological egoism, to mere materialist claims, when he knows they rely on metaphysical foundations. But then he uses metaphysics and epistemology to critique other positions.
But I still think the book is a solid introduction to the topics covered. And while I would likely disagree strongly with the author on some things, I will reiterate what I said earlier, in that I didn't find him overly biased.
May 5, 2022
Disclaimer: I only read this book because it was required for Introduction to Ethics and I saw it had a Goodreads so I decided to mark it here. So the rating may be biased picking it up solely for school and not recreational purposes.
I don't even know how to go about reviewing this but I will say. . .it is interesting enough to read up on and learn but it felt rushed. I get that this is like a guide into the theories rather than in depth detail, I get that. However. . .it felt too fast paced for someone who's a novice or never thought about ethics before. At the end I ended up barely comprehending it. I also didn't like how it seemed to be an argument against every single thing. Again, I understand to show the faults that others would perceive the different theories to be, but it felt more like an opinion piece on what he feels is morally right and wrong than an actual textbook piece.
I wouldn't read it again. It was interesting and informative, don't get me wrong, but I feel I barely understood things in the end and while it's good to know his opinion and to know the faults of the theories, because everything in one way or another has some type of fault, it just came off in a way that didn't stick well with me. I felt I was being forced to pick something instead of the faults being laid out and to decide for yourself
I don't even know how to go about reviewing this but I will say. . .it is interesting enough to read up on and learn but it felt rushed. I get that this is like a guide into the theories rather than in depth detail, I get that. However. . .it felt too fast paced for someone who's a novice or never thought about ethics before. At the end I ended up barely comprehending it. I also didn't like how it seemed to be an argument against every single thing. Again, I understand to show the faults that others would perceive the different theories to be, but it felt more like an opinion piece on what he feels is morally right and wrong than an actual textbook piece.
I wouldn't read it again. It was interesting and informative, don't get me wrong, but I feel I barely understood things in the end and while it's good to know his opinion and to know the faults of the theories, because everything in one way or another has some type of fault, it just came off in a way that didn't stick well with me. I felt I was being forced to pick something instead of the faults being laid out and to decide for yourself
July 28, 2023
Although it's a textbook, this is, quite simply, one of the best books I've ever read. It's written with warmth and wit, humility and humor, and it presents the main schools of thought regarding ethics, addressing their strengths and weaknesses with respect as well as skepticism. I've puzzled at what the author's own personal views could be for over a decade, since when I first came across it in an earlier edition, and I'm no closer to an answer now than before. This, to me, is a gold standard of an introductory textbook.
I'm truly grateful to Russ Shafer-Landau for this book. It is the main textbook I recall from my undergraduate studies, and the fact that I came back and bought another copy over a decade later is a testament to its quality and importance. So is the fact that it's sparked what is, at least so far, a lifelong passion for ethics and philosophy.
I envy you, dear first-time reader: you're in for a treat!
I'm truly grateful to Russ Shafer-Landau for this book. It is the main textbook I recall from my undergraduate studies, and the fact that I came back and bought another copy over a decade later is a testament to its quality and importance. So is the fact that it's sparked what is, at least so far, a lifelong passion for ethics and philosophy.
I envy you, dear first-time reader: you're in for a treat!
February 9, 2024
Had to drop this. The arguments are just really bad.
The argument against natural law is just "it seems like it's not moral so it's wrong".
"Suppose that our natural purposes are survival and procreation. A woman whose doctor has told her that becoming pregnant will threaten her life is not acting immorally if she has a tubal ligation—even though doing so will undermine her ability to procreate." (that's all he wrote btw, then he moves on to something else)
But someone who believes fitness determines morals would think she is doing something immoral. The author seem unable to even consider that intuitively "moral" actions could be immoral.
This is just one example. Many arguments against hedonism were also completely wrong. I can find better arguments and I don't agree with either hedonism or fitness.
How a supposed Professor in philosophy can be this inflexible and unimaginative really baffles me.
The argument against natural law is just "it seems like it's not moral so it's wrong".
"Suppose that our natural purposes are survival and procreation. A woman whose doctor has told her that becoming pregnant will threaten her life is not acting immorally if she has a tubal ligation—even though doing so will undermine her ability to procreate." (that's all he wrote btw, then he moves on to something else)
But someone who believes fitness determines morals would think she is doing something immoral. The author seem unable to even consider that intuitively "moral" actions could be immoral.
This is just one example. Many arguments against hedonism were also completely wrong. I can find better arguments and I don't agree with either hedonism or fitness.
How a supposed Professor in philosophy can be this inflexible and unimaginative really baffles me.
July 24, 2023
Excellent introduction to ethics. This accessible textbook focuses on the good life, normative ethics (principles and frameworks), and metaethics (the status of morality, how ethical thought fits with reality). This is my current favourite for the opening chapter on reasoning well about ethics, the inclusion of metaethics and pluralism.
Other options for introductory textbooks are
- justice by Michael sandel, which is shorter, and includes political philosophy
- practical ethics by Peter singer, which focuses on bioethics from a utilitarian perspective, but neglects normative ethics
- the elements of moral philosophy by the rachels, which I have yet to read, but the fundamentals seems to cover all of the same territory and more
Other options for introductory textbooks are
- justice by Michael sandel, which is shorter, and includes political philosophy
- practical ethics by Peter singer, which focuses on bioethics from a utilitarian perspective, but neglects normative ethics
- the elements of moral philosophy by the rachels, which I have yet to read, but the fundamentals seems to cover all of the same territory and more
March 22, 2022
Simply an excellent introduction. I wanted something that was fairly up to date on current perspectives, and contained a mix of value theory, normative ethics, and metaethics. The companion book also contains many essays in the field of applied ethics. It checked all the boxes while also being fairly accessible and rigorous. Some might argue that the “for and against” format of explaining each theory is degrading or unfair, but I think to present each theory in any other way would be to mislead the reader about their merits. If there’s one thing Shafer-Landau repeatedly nails home, it’s that ethics is hard and it’s difficulty is not a reason for oversimplification.
January 6, 2021
I've never been in a book club, and never want to be in a book club - unless this was the book being read. The arguments and discussion would be fascinating - lots of yelling, frustration, enemies being made, a-ha moments - all the good stuff.
Took me a long time to read this as it is a very thorough and thoughtful book. A dense textbook, but it reads easily and logically. It needs time to digest and savor and question.
Excellent overview of ethics and morality. "Overview" is probably too dismissive - there is a LOT here.
Took me a long time to read this as it is a very thorough and thoughtful book. A dense textbook, but it reads easily and logically. It needs time to digest and savor and question.
Excellent overview of ethics and morality. "Overview" is probably too dismissive - there is a LOT here.
September 4, 2021
This book is generally Ok, covering a wide range of topics and ethical theories, and functions well as a introduction for those who have no philosophy training. However, it is sometimes too wordy and seems unnatural as the author makes an effort to be beginner-friendly and to quip. For those who never learned anything about ethics and even philosophy before, it is the right book for you. If you have learned something and want to enhance your study, I recommend you the book Moral Theory by Mark Timmons published by Rowman&Littlefield, which would be better than this one.
October 6, 2021
I am currently a student reading this 'textbook.' You would think that a textbook would analyze each concept and its implications very objectively. Perhaps expand on different philosophers' opinions on it.
While I do agree with (some) of Shafer-Landau's opinions, I can't help but wonder what other philosophers think. Why is he imposing on us, during class, what he thinks is morally right or wrong? I would've perhaps liked reading it if I expected it to explore Shafer Landau's opinions on different philosophical concepts, but this book is definitely not good for a school 'textbook.'
While I do agree with (some) of Shafer-Landau's opinions, I can't help but wonder what other philosophers think. Why is he imposing on us, during class, what he thinks is morally right or wrong? I would've perhaps liked reading it if I expected it to explore Shafer Landau's opinions on different philosophical concepts, but this book is definitely not good for a school 'textbook.'
November 27, 2019
This book is not for everyone nor for everything. If you want a very general overview of the main themes in ethics, the basic concepts and fundamental debates and arguments, then this is your book, and an excellent one in that regard. But if what you are looking for is an in-depth treatment of ethics, a deep understanding of theories and their authors, then look elsewhere. Keeping that in mind, this book is very good.
March 26, 2020
Positives:
- Good introductions inbetween the chapters to work out why certain theories might emerge
- Nice disposition with listing of each theory's attractions and drawbacks
Negatives:
- Sometimes loses itself in details of examples and loses the bigger picture
- At times not very tactful in choosing an appropriate language for describing vulnerable people and sometimes choosing unnecessarily gruesome examples to make a point
- Good introductions inbetween the chapters to work out why certain theories might emerge
- Nice disposition with listing of each theory's attractions and drawbacks
Negatives:
- Sometimes loses itself in details of examples and loses the bigger picture
- At times not very tactful in choosing an appropriate language for describing vulnerable people and sometimes choosing unnecessarily gruesome examples to make a point
November 24, 2023
It is is helpful to visit organizing thoughts and perspectives in ethics. This book combined with three others provides the necessary optimific considerations. And learned new term in supererogation in ethics, an act is supererogatory if it is good but not morally required to be done. It refers to an act that is more than is necessary, when another course of action—involving less—would still be an acceptable action.
January 7, 2025
A sufficient introduction to ethics. The sections on Kant, I feel, are crucially and fatally underdeveloped, leaving me with the recommendation that one ought to simply read the Stanford Encyclopedia’s readings on Kant rather than Shafer-Landau’s. Aside from that criticism, though, I feel it to be a good book, which could be recommended to anybody with a cursory but burning interest into the various branches of ethics.
July 20, 2019
Great for an overview of various moral theories and their pros and cons as well as some light metaethics at the end. That being said, each discussion was rather short and colloquial. Would prefer fewer theories with more thorough discussion or a shorter book with less unnecessary / unconvincing discussion.
October 2, 2019
I used this book primarily as a way to learn more about ethics and morality with the purpose of improving my arguments in debate rounds. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was easy to understand, clear and concise.
I have read other books on ethics before, and the only other one I found as approachable and clear as this one was Michael Sandel's "Justice".
I have read other books on ethics before, and the only other one I found as approachable and clear as this one was Michael Sandel's "Justice".
September 19, 2020
Great overview of core occidental ethical theories. It provides a great structure in an easy to read colloquial language for those curios about ethical debates. As it is a book about the fundamentals don't be surprised that it doesn't go in the depth of any problematic. If you want something that goes more in depth you can use the references of this book as a guide.
June 20, 2023
A great book and very good introduction to ethics and philosophy. The language is a bit confusing at times, but I think that might be the point. I really loved how I would learn about a theory in one chapter then watch Shafer-Landau absolutely tear that theory apart! It kept me on my toes and made me question everything I know about ethics.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews