By Louis P. Pojman - Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (4th Edition) (2001-06-16) [Paperback]

by Louis P. Pojman

善恶之间是否有答案？虽然不是每个人都需要回答如此意义之大的问题，但与善恶有关的事件每天都可能发生在我们身边，我们必须决定采纳何种道德观点、采取何种道德立场。车轮之所以被发明出来，是为了以最小的摩擦来促进物体的运输。道德之所以被构建出来是为了服务于人生存的需要和对繁荣与幸福的欲求。理想的道德应该充当个人幸福与社会和谐的蓝图。

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Academic, Reference, Textbooks

Paperback

First published June 1, 1990

Reviews

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In many ways this is an excellent survey of ethics. It does a good job of introducing arguments and distinctions that some other surveys might gloss over for the sake of brevity. In contrast with the last ethics book I read, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics, it does a better job of presenting the complexity of the systems and (with maybe one exception--DCT) presenting them in their strongest form. It also does a better job of introducing the student to terminology and distinctions that will be helpful as they continue to study ethics.

My main problem with the book relates to the way it fails to present the bias of the authors and where it switches between a "just laying out the options" approach and a "defending what we think is correct" approach. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics was upfront about its commitments. But this book transitions somewhat seamlessly between the authors' stance of what the student should conclude and the options of what the student could conclude. This will probably result in some confused students at best or, at worst, in some shallow thinking where a student fails to realize their own biases.

Let me give an example of where the authors might leave the student a bit confused. The authors clearly want to defend some form of secular moral realism. Thus, they adopt the stance, at a few different places, that points at which an ethical system appeals to God are actually problems for that system (e.g. 72). Yet, at the end of the book, when the authors are attempting to meet the challenge of moral skepticism, their response to J. L. Mackie's queerness argument is simply to posit God (231). In other words, by the authors' own logic, Mackie seems to have not been satisfactorily answered.

And this also illustrates where the authors' confusingly switch between a "one might take this option" (theism, an option we've indicated earlier shouldn't be preferred) and a "this is what we think is correct" (against moral skepticism, the option we want you to adopt, nevermind part of our case in answering Mackie posited the other option you shouldn't prefer).

Other issues would be that in some instances the arguments seem oddly poor, or at least incomplete. Act-intuitionism is criticized as having "some serious disadvantages" (123) and yet, at best, in their argument for moral objectivism at different places throughout the book ("We all generally prefer..." (42); "...generally adhere ... lightly violated... too easily." (117)) the authors' don't seem capable from completely escaping it.

Along these lines, there is an odd appeal to "commonsense morality" regarding abortion (36). This is a bizarre appeal which further illustrates the problem of the authors seamlessly switching between taking their position for granted and drawing conclusions from within their stance and attempting to neutrally set forth the moral landscape for the consideration of students. This is an instance where students likely will not be aware of their own moral prejudice and, thus, such statements will leave the student thinking that such-and-such is just "common sense" while also "My ethics were constructed from a neutral vantage point."

Another example: "Without the protection of innocent life, nothing would be possible for us" (40). While this might *seem* obvious and not in need of defense, doesn't history indicate otherwise? Won't those who see abortion as the taking of innocent life have a counter-example? Won't those who see the exploitation of women as being a widespread and serious problem (there was an article in NYT yesterday about this) think that actually society can make huge advancements in a variety of areas while treating a huge block of the human population unjustly.

Almost all of the problems I mentioned above could be avoided if the authors were more transparent regarding their own biases and flagged them for the student. A few consistency issues would still remain.

[Gaby Habchy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a chapter of this book every week since the beginning of my Fall semester. I am a strong believer and defender of books, and this one in particular has reinforced my claim deeper in my heart. I found myself conversing about utilitarianism, even writing it correctly oddly, and giving people around me advice I learned from this book (not quoting but referencing); to gain satisfaction one must lose it, better socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, egoism does have pragmatic point of views but I will always choose utility, etc.
I found myself adding to my reading list books from authors I never knew would interest me like utilitarianism by John Stewart mill.
In chapters I was most afraid of, like religion and ethics, I actually found answers to questions I had long asked, and discovered that no matter what, theists will always pursue the greater good. Because in opposition to what the greeks made of their gods, depicting them on the image of men, with all the lust and vengeance one can have in one’s heart, modern theists consider God to be the absolute good, also Thomas Aquinas is a diamond in the rough, we know too little about him as civilian christians and it is a shame.
When I picked this book up I had low expectation because I had never read anything philosophical or near philosophical expect Sophie’s world. This book shook me to my core and introduced me to a world of what I never thought was that deontological, (also the usage of long perplexing vocabulary): Ethics.
What a world, what an experience, I loved every single bit of it and believe I must read this book at least a couple of times yet, to understand the true meaning of it’s creed.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book of explanation of different positions in ethics.

[Eric McGill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in Papa’s ethics class at BYU. Clear and concise intro survey.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

I gave this book 5 stars because it achieves what it sets out to achieve better than any other book that purports to do the same - provide an introduction to ethics.

Pojman's book title is an intentional play on the title of ethicist J.L. Mackie's book Ethics: Inventing Right & Wrong.

Pojman is well known for putting together many anthologies on disparate branches of philosophical inquiry. Ethics was his specialty (he did his Ph.D. in ethics). If Pojman read the many articles he selected to be part of his anthologies, this would then put him in a good position to write an introduction to the subject.

Pojman covers much ground in his little book. Not only does he discuss many major ethical theories, viz., Relativism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Kantian and Deontological systems, and Virtue ethics, he also discusses moral objectivism, religion and ethics, value, moral realism and skepticism, and he has a chapter on metaethics too.

His writing is clear and conversational, and his presentations of the various positions he discusses are fair. Pojman has a definite opinion, though, and he doesn't shy away from promoting it. Perhaps this is because the 5th edition was revised after 9/11 and Pojman was attempting to get people on the same moral page; one he thought could simultaneously resist the subjectivist, who would say that flying planes into buildings wasn't *really* wrong, as well as present the best case for why we could say that what the terrorists did was really wrong.

Pojman offers what he calls an "ethical naturalism" as a theory that "seems right." But, this isn't to be confused with "metaphysical naturalism." It is couched in terms of functionalism, i.e., ethical principles have a certain function (increased happiness and allotting for human flourishing - but he isn't a Utilitarian). This naturalism adds a teleological aspect to his morality - to which an argument can be given fits best within a theistic worldview (think Plantinga and proper function epistemology). But, that's my inference, not Pojman's. Pojman actually aims to present a neutral ethic. One which both theist and secularist could join hands in holding. He does give a nod towards the theist, maintaining that perhaps there are morally relevant advantages to theism.

It would be interesting to discuss the merits of Pojman's arguments here, and the rest of the positions and arguments in the book, which are subject, each and every one, to intense debate in the relevant ethical literature, but that's not my purpose in writing this review - nor do I have the time to explore these avenues! Needless to say, I think this book the best introduction to the subject that I have encountered. Not only for the information conveyed to the reader, but for the high potential it has to spark numerous personal (both inter- and intra-), or classroom, discussion. Having heaped such laudatory comments, I'll end with a slight critique.

Pojman says that his position is naturalistic, he says that what makes his position "naturalistic," is that "moral properties supervene on natural ones." But this supervenience position is the same position non-naturalist Russ Shafer-Landau takes in his _Moral realism: A Defense_. He claims that all he is saying by calling himself a naturalist is that he is taking a functional approach to ethics, but he is not advancing metaphysical naturalism. Pojman does not define what he means here. Shafer-Landau points out that there are metaphysical naturalists who are non-reductionists about moral principles, and so this point in Pojman's argument needs a bit of cleaning up. But again, it is an introduction, so I guess I wouldn't say I offered a critique, but just made a point of technicality that Pojman is not altogether clear about.

[Frankie Nozedar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Concise, informative, thought provoking

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

For years I have been using "Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong" (off and on) to teach my Intro to Ethics courses. Over that time, Louis died and James Fieser has added some new chapters (and tightened up a few of the others). Generally speaking, it is a pretty decent book. It does a notably better job at covering Divine Command Theory (now called Theological Voluntarism by many philosophers) and Natural Law Theory than do comparable textbooks--which isn't surprising given Pojman's religious convictions. And the staple chapters on Kant, contractarianism, utilitarianism, relativism, virtue ethics, and hedonism compare well with those in similar introductory texts (Pojman's chapter on Kant, despite it relative brevity, is far better that Landau's much longer selections, for instance). Moreover, the overdue chapter Fieser added on "Gender and Ethics" (feminist ethics and ethics of care) has boosted the book's relevance.

But Pojman and Fieser's text has some glaring weaknesses. The chapters on metaethics are poorly organized and developed, more often confusing my students than helping them. And there is almost no coverage at all of logic and moral reasoning strategies, nor of the voluminous secondary literature and contemporary philosophers associated with each normative theory in its current form. And a few of the chapters are simply so outdated that they need a ground-up revision of the figures and material they address. But the biggest problem with this text is its cost since Cengage acquired the rights: It currently sells for $100 while other comparable textbooks sell for under $40. If Shafer-Landau's Oxford text did a better job with Kant and religious ethics, and Wolff's Norton text was not so abbreviated in every respect, both of those (which I have intermittently used for my classes) would be better choices for a beginner to learn about moral philosophy than is "Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong."

[Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read many textbooks since finishing grad school over a decade ago. I read this one, however, because a friend recommended it as a better than average book on the philosophy of ethics. I have to say that I agree that it is an excellent book. Author Louis P. Pojman, a professor of philosophy at West Point, takes the reader on a journey through the history of all of the major schools of ethical thought. He does an excellent job of presenting all of the major opinions on each subject, even when they differ from his own. But he doesn't stop here. He doesn't hesitate to offer his own opinions (clearly labeled as his own) or to admit when he hasn't been able to formulate a strong position on a difficult issue. This magnanimity is one of the book's strengths. Ultimately, Pojman argues (correctly, in my opinion) for the existence of objective ethics that exists without the necessity of an all powerful creator (although he doesn't exclude the possibility of a creator either).

[Nastja · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read. All the theories were thoroughly explained and illustrated with a lot of relatable and interesting examples from history, literature and everyday life. I'd really recommend this book to anyone who is interested in philosophy and/or ethics, but also to those who are just looking for a profound read, to think and follow other people's thoughts on values, religion, egoism and "right" and "wrong".

[Rargen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Required for my ethics class at Darton College: the book is sufficient for the course, but so would many other such books. The short length makes it easy for an introduction to ethics, but as such it leaves a lot out and is eager to make compromises not philosophically justified. Then again it is an introductory text and this is just another point of discussion.

[Maryam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A painful read, but mostly because I can't understand almost half the things discussed in it. People with higher IQ would be able to understand it, no doubt. It's a textbook, so it's very textbook-ish. But I like how the author gives lots of "exercise questions" (lol) for students to answer. Which, I skipped, naturally.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is easy to read and informative, but I can't say it was totally necessary as a required text for a philosophy class. I think wikipedia had more complete and concise summaries of the material, to be honest. Not a textbook I would like to keep, unfortunately it has no sell-back value.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great introductory text.

[Jocasta Collier · Rating 5 out of 5]

I Loved this book and have found it extremely useful. It provides a nice overview of the field and is a great starting point in ethics research.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic primer on moral theory.  Highly recommended. Worth observing: while Pojman is not writing from a "Christian" point of view, he struggles to make sense of ethics outside a theistic framework.  As do the thinkers he cites.  Perhaps there's a reason for this.  Perhaps it's impossible.  



Notes: 


1) Traits of moral principles. Prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, publicity, practicality (6)


2) Deontological: duty (10)


3) Hobbes: so morality is a form of social control. We all opt for an enforceable set of rules such that if almost all of us obey them almost all of the time, almost all of us will be better off almost all of the time (13)


4) Purpose of morality 

1. To keep Society from falling apart

2. To ameliorate human suffering

3. To promote human flourishing

4. To resolve conflicts of interest in just an orderly

5. To assign praise and blame, reward and Punishment, and guilt (16)


5) The doctrine of double effect:

Four conditions that must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:

1. The nature of the ACT condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent. Lying or intentionally killing an innocent person is never permissible.

2. The means and condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

3. The right intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of the only the good effect, with a bad effect being only an unintended side-effect. If the bad effect as a means of obtaining the good effect, then the ACT is immoral. The bad effect may be foreseen but must not be intended.

4. The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect

 (47)


6) Are there any moral absolute principles? Pojma says: it is morally wrong to torture people for the fun of it (52)


7) Socrates distinguished three kinds of goods: (1) purely intrinsic Goods (of which simple Joys are an example), (2) purely instrumental Goods (of which medicine and making money are examples), and (3)combination Goods (such as knowledge, sight, and health), which are good in themselves and good as a means of further Goods. (62)


8) Emmanuel Kant: time laws of second-order principle) by which to judge all oter as the crates. You must act"a our will to become a universal lwsics.? He gives this as the criterion (or By maxim Kant means the general rule in accordance tends to act, and by law he means an objective principle,a with which the agent

in the test of universalizability.That passes the categorical imperative is the way to apply the versalizability test. It enables us to stand outside our personal maxims and estimate impartially and impersonally whether they are suitable as principles

everyone would act for all of us to live by. If you could consistently will that on a given maxim, then there is an application of the categorical imperais showing the moral permissibility of the action. If you could not consistently

will that everyone would act on the maxim, then that type of action is morally wrong. The maxim must be rejected as self-defeated.3 Kant offered three formulations of the categorical imperative. We will look at each,in turn begining with the first

If'M' represents 'Maxim' and 'P' represents Principle', the formula looks like this:

Maxim (M)

Second-order principle (Cl)→ rejected maxims

ations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant gives four examples of the

First-order principle (P) (surviving maxims)

suicide, (3) pplie roma (139)


9) For traditional Duty based ethics, the question is, what should I do?  For virtue ethics, the question is, what sort of person should I become? (156)


10) We cannot turn our dispositions on and off like water faucets, but we can take steps to inculcate the right dispositions and attitudes (171)


11) Six advantages religion brings to moral reasoning:

1. If there is a God, good will win out over evil

2. If God exists, then Cosmic Justice Reigns in the universe

3. If theism is true, moral reasons always override non moral reasons

4. If theism is true, then there is a God who loves and cares for us. His love inspires us.

5. If there is a God who created us in His image, all persons are of equal worth

6. If God exists, we have a compelling solution to the posterity problem (202)