What do you think?
Rate this book
Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics
Writing with wit and elegance, Simon Blackburn tackles the basic questions of ethics in this lively book, highlighting the complications and troubling issues that spring from the very simple question of how we ought to live. Blackburn dissects the many common reasons for why we are skeptical about ethics. Drawing on examples from history, politics, religion and everyday personal experience, he shows how cynicism and self-consciousness can paralyze us into considering ethics a hopeless pursuit. He assures us that ethics is neither futile nor irrelevant, but an intimate part of the most important issues of living--of birth, death, happiness, desire, freedom, pleasure, and justice. Indeed, from moral dilemmas about abortion and euthanasia, to our obsession with personal rights, to our longing for a sense of meaning in life, our everyday struggles are rife with ethical issues. Blackburn distills the arguments of Hume, Kant and Aristotle down to their essences, to underscore the timeless relevance of our voice of conscience, the pitfalls of complacency, and our concerns about truth, knowledge and human progress.
Blackburn's rare combination of depth, rigor, and sparkling prose, along with his distinguished ranking among contemporary philosophers, mark Being Good as an important statement on our current disenchantment with ethics. It challenges us to take a more thoughtful reading of our ethical climate and to ponder more carefully our own standards of behavior.
Blackburn's rare combination of depth, rigor, and sparkling prose, along with his distinguished ranking among contemporary philosophers, mark Being Good as an important statement on our current disenchantment with ethics. It challenges us to take a more thoughtful reading of our ethical climate and to ponder more carefully our own standards of behavior.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
121 people are currently reading
1824 people want to read
About the author
Simon Blackburn
74 books270 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009–2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009–2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
November 5, 2013
Slowly working my way through the Very Short Introduction series. This has been the worst of the lot till now - in fact the series had been pretty good until this one.
Blackburn seems to be unaware that the standards had been set a tad higher in this series and chooses to ramble on about just societies etc instead of focusing on a compact introduction with enough fresh thoughts to send the reader packing on his way to denser pastures. That is what the authors I have read in the series until now had done. In any case, I will continue working through the VSIs. They usually tend to be good.
Blackburn seems to be unaware that the standards had been set a tad higher in this series and chooses to ramble on about just societies etc instead of focusing on a compact introduction with enough fresh thoughts to send the reader packing on his way to denser pastures. That is what the authors I have read in the series until now had done. In any case, I will continue working through the VSIs. They usually tend to be good.
October 20, 2008
When I got to the 'joke' about the priest who presented the Truth about eternal life and the promise of salvation and it was received as, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great." on page 26 I knew I didn't need this kind of book on ethics, especially since his witness was used as the butt of the joke and a relativist claim to authority. According to Blackburn, 'The moral is that once a relativist frame of mind is really in place, nothing--no claims to truth, authority, certainty, or necessity--will be audible except as one more saying like all the others.'
Too bad. I hoped this might be a good book.
Too bad. I hoped this might be a good book.
March 26, 2021
3.25/5 - Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics is good, but only for a beginner in this sphere. Even then, it has serious flaws. The depth is lacking, the focus is uneven, but it gave me enough great information to be a worth the time.
Simon Blackburn's other book, Think, was so good that I thought I had to buy this one. Recently, I had been struggling with the problems of moral nihilism and relativism, so I desperately wanted to see what philosophy had to answer that with. It turns out, not much. This isn't a flaw in and of itself. If philosophy can't deal with them, then I can hardly knock Blackburn for being unable to answer my concerns.
The book is divided into three sections. The first one is given to challenges to ethical systems, like the ones I mentioned above. Some of these explanations are great, and Blackburn was able to dismantle these views. Others, like skepticism, relativism, and nihilism went almost completely unaddressed throughout the book, or ended up being acknowledged in some form. His summaries were decent, but he occasionally went into long-winded rants that were both boring and mostly unrelated.
The second part is dedicated to areas where moral debates come into play, such as life, death, pleasure, and rights. This section was full of discussions that were reminiscent of Platonic dialogues. They gave answers and challenges in turn, and generally didn't offer a resolution. In fact, this entire book could be seen as being like that. Regardless, this section is where Blackburn most often strays into lengthy and barely tangential discussions on society, which is why I said the focus is lacking. He also discusses Utilitarianism in this section, which is weird considering that the next section is dedicated to systems of ethics. This middle third was the worst part of the book, and seriously slowed down my progress.
The third part is easily the most interesting. Here, he goes over various philosophical proposals of ethical foundations, like Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Rawls's Justice as Fairness principle. These were fascinating to read about, but this is the shortest section of the book by far. Its insane that he gives so little time to the most important section. He also dismisses Rawls's theory with very little justification. I thought the Justice as Fairness and Original Position theory were novel and fascinating, but he kneecaps it here. As mentioned above, he discusses Utilitarianism in the second section rather than here, which I think is dumb.
Being Good is an odd book. I'm not taking points off because of its failure to live up to my expectations. I'm taking off points because of its failure to even live up to its premise. Its an introduction, sure, but the introductory material is partially buried underneath Blackburn's own prejudices and pointless rambling, along with the terrible structuring and pointless inclusions. I don't regret reading this book at all, and if you like philosophy, you'd probably do well to read it, but I can't deny how flawed this text is.
Simon Blackburn's other book, Think, was so good that I thought I had to buy this one. Recently, I had been struggling with the problems of moral nihilism and relativism, so I desperately wanted to see what philosophy had to answer that with. It turns out, not much. This isn't a flaw in and of itself. If philosophy can't deal with them, then I can hardly knock Blackburn for being unable to answer my concerns.
The book is divided into three sections. The first one is given to challenges to ethical systems, like the ones I mentioned above. Some of these explanations are great, and Blackburn was able to dismantle these views. Others, like skepticism, relativism, and nihilism went almost completely unaddressed throughout the book, or ended up being acknowledged in some form. His summaries were decent, but he occasionally went into long-winded rants that were both boring and mostly unrelated.
The second part is dedicated to areas where moral debates come into play, such as life, death, pleasure, and rights. This section was full of discussions that were reminiscent of Platonic dialogues. They gave answers and challenges in turn, and generally didn't offer a resolution. In fact, this entire book could be seen as being like that. Regardless, this section is where Blackburn most often strays into lengthy and barely tangential discussions on society, which is why I said the focus is lacking. He also discusses Utilitarianism in this section, which is weird considering that the next section is dedicated to systems of ethics. This middle third was the worst part of the book, and seriously slowed down my progress.
The third part is easily the most interesting. Here, he goes over various philosophical proposals of ethical foundations, like Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Rawls's Justice as Fairness principle. These were fascinating to read about, but this is the shortest section of the book by far. Its insane that he gives so little time to the most important section. He also dismisses Rawls's theory with very little justification. I thought the Justice as Fairness and Original Position theory were novel and fascinating, but he kneecaps it here. As mentioned above, he discusses Utilitarianism in the second section rather than here, which I think is dumb.
Being Good is an odd book. I'm not taking points off because of its failure to live up to my expectations. I'm taking off points because of its failure to even live up to its premise. Its an introduction, sure, but the introductory material is partially buried underneath Blackburn's own prejudices and pointless rambling, along with the terrible structuring and pointless inclusions. I don't regret reading this book at all, and if you like philosophy, you'd probably do well to read it, but I can't deny how flawed this text is.
April 3, 2024
My dissatisfactions with this book:
1. The book is well-structured in a broad sense yet lacks enough detail and depth.
2. In the first few chapters, the author has a clear preference for atheistic interpretations of ethics. Religious views of morals are generally treated with skepticism or simply seen as ludicrous. Most of the moral questions in Part Two are discussed only from a limited, secular perspective.
1. The book is well-structured in a broad sense yet lacks enough detail and depth.
2. In the first few chapters, the author has a clear preference for atheistic interpretations of ethics. Religious views of morals are generally treated with skepticism or simply seen as ludicrous. Most of the moral questions in Part Two are discussed only from a limited, secular perspective.
May 17, 2016
This book is not specific enough about trends in ethics to be of good use in an Intro to Philosophy class, but it provides a sophisticated and non-condescending account of the subject fit for intelligent people looking for the lay of the land.
January 19, 2019
In Being Good: A short introduction to ethics (2001), contemporary philosopher Simon Blackburn offers a tour de force along the field of ethics. He does this by attacking everyday subjects that common people busy themselves with. This book is therefore written for a general audience; no prior background in ethics in needed to understand it.
The book itself is divided into three parts. In part 1, Blackburn responds to seven main threats to ethics. This part deals with the claim that morals presuppose a god; moral relativism and moral scepticism; the naturalistic fallacy (especially evolutionary accounts of ethics); fatalism; the unworldly aspirations of moral philsophy; and the contemporary and not-so contemporary debate on ethics as a tool of the elites to make the masses internalize a false consciousness.
Then, in part 2 of the book, Blackburn enters the domain of the everyday problems that presents us ethical questions and dilemma's. Subjects include life; death; the meaning of life; freedom; and the status of rights. Basically, every aspect in nature, including our lives, is gradual. This gradual conception of things doesn't fit well with dogmatists, who'd like to claim something's either good or bad. Blackburn's approach is the perspective most intellectuals like to take: look for common ground between parties, make each party see the issue through the eyes of the other, and try to establish a compromise. For example, neither abortion nor the concept of freedom are black/white themes.
Also, when pondering questions like 'what does life mean?' and 'what is a good life?' there's no general answer. We all have to decide that for ourselves and philosophy can help us 'clear away the rubble' (as John Locke would say) and rob us of our erroneous ways of thinking. For example, the meaning of life is not linked in any way to death, to the universe, to god(s), but simply to existence. You exist and that's it, make the best of it! And 'best' is subsequently to be defined according to your own preferences. Blackburn adheres - on this point, at least - to David Hume's sentimentalism, the view that our emotions guide or morality and that reason comes along afterwards. Feeling happy and feeling content is hence the ultimate sign of a good life.
The last part of the book, part 3, skims the foundations of ethics. Or rather, the consequentialist side (starting with Hume and proceeding through Bentham to Mill) and the deontological side (mainly Kant). Both are flawed, incomplete positions. The alternatives, Aristotle (too elitist) and Rawls (too contractual), are imperfect as well. Blackburn seems to end in a Platonic aporia and concludes his little book with the notion that even though we might not be able to measure ethical progress and even though the world still contains much injustice, we should be able to distinguish mini-steps into the right direction.
For me, this book didn't really struck a chord. It is too superficial to be really interesting. Also, it is too steeped in progressive-liberal ideology to really offer a neutral account of things. In my view, a book on ethics should be as a-moral as possible. Blackburn is the typical academic who clings to utilitarian morality (calculate and measure everything - please!); then notices the flaws in this system and decides to selectively incorporate some contractualism à la Rawls and some virtue-building à la Aristotle; and ends up with a concoction of ethical guidelines that is supposed to reduce suffering and injustice worldwide. And of course this is permeated through and through with a 'look for victims everywhere'-mentality. Basically, Blackburn adheres to an ethics in the same vein as Peter Singer. We should care about the whole world and about future generations - that this is simply not a viable or affordable option for most of us seems to escape the bright minds of such thinkers.
The problem I have with the type of intellectual like Blackburn is that they abstract from everyday life and then take these abstractions as the problem of ethics for which their system offers a solution. For example, a poor person will not very quickly accept a compromise in which the rich person gains as well; just like the religious believer will not accept a gradualist conception of abortion, while the pregnant women with a wish to abort her baby will not accept a 'no'.
This most interesting part of Blackburn's book is the part where he deals with the problem of freedom and rights. We formulate rights in order to garantuee the freedoms of people, but in doing so we run into problems. No freedom can be absolute, so rights have to be limited - but where to draw the line? Also, rights imply that a person can hold someone responsible if his or her rights aren't respected, but this creates a snackbar-model of rights - we just selectively pick whatever we want and when someone trespasses on our domain we claim they disrespect our rights.
The juridication of our Western culture - incouding the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights - creates a claimants-culture in which lawyers and judges enforce others to bow to the will of minorities. This is seen in the contemporary debate about international migration - migrants come to Europe, where an army of lawyers and judges stands at the ready to enforce governments to give these people papers, housing, medical aid, etc. and to enforce the tax payer to pay for this.
The ideology of moral philosophers like Blackburn, Singer, Rawls, and their likes turns morality into a political tool. Rawls, for example, advocates the view that society should redistribute all wealth until the least well-off disappear into the grey mass of middle classes. Karl Marx would exclaim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" For Rawls, the point where redistribution stops is the point where transferring more increments of wealth to the least well-off starts to trigger the masses to stop working.
In other words: it now becomes a political question about who has which rights and who has to give what to whom. This view of morality is in its core a very calculating, utilitarian one and is typical for academics who like to view everything through the scientific lens - analyses of costs and benefits, statistical models about future scenario's, etc. That this morality has won the day can be seen in the policies with which Western countries enforce healthy lifestyles and useful lives on their citizens - of course 'healthy' and 'useful' are moral concepts, but they're presented as if they're simply factual claims. For example, forcing people to quit smoking is deemed to be the best for all of us. Another example is the climate hysteria, which, ultimately, is based on future predictions based on computer models. That this is never mentioned in the news is because all those involved know the inherent uncertainties in this system. Now, science becomes a tool for policy-makers to enforce a certain type of morality.
I think such a philosophy is one-sided and it leaves out important aspects of our humanity. Aspects that very well might prove to be much more important and influential in living meaningful lives than this bare and empty intellectual morality. It is therefore ironic that Blackburn deems Aristotle to be too elitist - here's the well-paid and well-cared for intellectual telling us what to do. Now where's the difference?
Anyway, the book itself is rather too short (135 pages) and offers not much new or interesting material to merit even a decent rating. I can't really recommend it - maybe only to people who have never read about ethics, as a first stepping stone to the more serious works.
The book itself is divided into three parts. In part 1, Blackburn responds to seven main threats to ethics. This part deals with the claim that morals presuppose a god; moral relativism and moral scepticism; the naturalistic fallacy (especially evolutionary accounts of ethics); fatalism; the unworldly aspirations of moral philsophy; and the contemporary and not-so contemporary debate on ethics as a tool of the elites to make the masses internalize a false consciousness.
Then, in part 2 of the book, Blackburn enters the domain of the everyday problems that presents us ethical questions and dilemma's. Subjects include life; death; the meaning of life; freedom; and the status of rights. Basically, every aspect in nature, including our lives, is gradual. This gradual conception of things doesn't fit well with dogmatists, who'd like to claim something's either good or bad. Blackburn's approach is the perspective most intellectuals like to take: look for common ground between parties, make each party see the issue through the eyes of the other, and try to establish a compromise. For example, neither abortion nor the concept of freedom are black/white themes.
Also, when pondering questions like 'what does life mean?' and 'what is a good life?' there's no general answer. We all have to decide that for ourselves and philosophy can help us 'clear away the rubble' (as John Locke would say) and rob us of our erroneous ways of thinking. For example, the meaning of life is not linked in any way to death, to the universe, to god(s), but simply to existence. You exist and that's it, make the best of it! And 'best' is subsequently to be defined according to your own preferences. Blackburn adheres - on this point, at least - to David Hume's sentimentalism, the view that our emotions guide or morality and that reason comes along afterwards. Feeling happy and feeling content is hence the ultimate sign of a good life.
The last part of the book, part 3, skims the foundations of ethics. Or rather, the consequentialist side (starting with Hume and proceeding through Bentham to Mill) and the deontological side (mainly Kant). Both are flawed, incomplete positions. The alternatives, Aristotle (too elitist) and Rawls (too contractual), are imperfect as well. Blackburn seems to end in a Platonic aporia and concludes his little book with the notion that even though we might not be able to measure ethical progress and even though the world still contains much injustice, we should be able to distinguish mini-steps into the right direction.
For me, this book didn't really struck a chord. It is too superficial to be really interesting. Also, it is too steeped in progressive-liberal ideology to really offer a neutral account of things. In my view, a book on ethics should be as a-moral as possible. Blackburn is the typical academic who clings to utilitarian morality (calculate and measure everything - please!); then notices the flaws in this system and decides to selectively incorporate some contractualism à la Rawls and some virtue-building à la Aristotle; and ends up with a concoction of ethical guidelines that is supposed to reduce suffering and injustice worldwide. And of course this is permeated through and through with a 'look for victims everywhere'-mentality. Basically, Blackburn adheres to an ethics in the same vein as Peter Singer. We should care about the whole world and about future generations - that this is simply not a viable or affordable option for most of us seems to escape the bright minds of such thinkers.
The problem I have with the type of intellectual like Blackburn is that they abstract from everyday life and then take these abstractions as the problem of ethics for which their system offers a solution. For example, a poor person will not very quickly accept a compromise in which the rich person gains as well; just like the religious believer will not accept a gradualist conception of abortion, while the pregnant women with a wish to abort her baby will not accept a 'no'.
This most interesting part of Blackburn's book is the part where he deals with the problem of freedom and rights. We formulate rights in order to garantuee the freedoms of people, but in doing so we run into problems. No freedom can be absolute, so rights have to be limited - but where to draw the line? Also, rights imply that a person can hold someone responsible if his or her rights aren't respected, but this creates a snackbar-model of rights - we just selectively pick whatever we want and when someone trespasses on our domain we claim they disrespect our rights.
The juridication of our Western culture - incouding the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights - creates a claimants-culture in which lawyers and judges enforce others to bow to the will of minorities. This is seen in the contemporary debate about international migration - migrants come to Europe, where an army of lawyers and judges stands at the ready to enforce governments to give these people papers, housing, medical aid, etc. and to enforce the tax payer to pay for this.
The ideology of moral philosophers like Blackburn, Singer, Rawls, and their likes turns morality into a political tool. Rawls, for example, advocates the view that society should redistribute all wealth until the least well-off disappear into the grey mass of middle classes. Karl Marx would exclaim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" For Rawls, the point where redistribution stops is the point where transferring more increments of wealth to the least well-off starts to trigger the masses to stop working.
In other words: it now becomes a political question about who has which rights and who has to give what to whom. This view of morality is in its core a very calculating, utilitarian one and is typical for academics who like to view everything through the scientific lens - analyses of costs and benefits, statistical models about future scenario's, etc. That this morality has won the day can be seen in the policies with which Western countries enforce healthy lifestyles and useful lives on their citizens - of course 'healthy' and 'useful' are moral concepts, but they're presented as if they're simply factual claims. For example, forcing people to quit smoking is deemed to be the best for all of us. Another example is the climate hysteria, which, ultimately, is based on future predictions based on computer models. That this is never mentioned in the news is because all those involved know the inherent uncertainties in this system. Now, science becomes a tool for policy-makers to enforce a certain type of morality.
I think such a philosophy is one-sided and it leaves out important aspects of our humanity. Aspects that very well might prove to be much more important and influential in living meaningful lives than this bare and empty intellectual morality. It is therefore ironic that Blackburn deems Aristotle to be too elitist - here's the well-paid and well-cared for intellectual telling us what to do. Now where's the difference?
Anyway, the book itself is rather too short (135 pages) and offers not much new or interesting material to merit even a decent rating. I can't really recommend it - maybe only to people who have never read about ethics, as a first stepping stone to the more serious works.
Read
January 12, 2024Kad es lasu šādas grāmatas man ir sajūta, ka pēkšņi vairs nesaprotu valodu. Es atpazīstu vārdus, tie ir salikti kopā teikumu konstrukcijās, bet es nekā nevaru piedabūt savu smadzenīti uztvert to teikumu domu. Es ticu, ka līdzīga sajūta ir nupat sākot mācīties lasīt un izteikties, kad visa pasaule ir viena liela makaronburtiņu zupa, kuras haosā tu peldi, stum burtus, nedaudz levitē, lai redzi no augšas, cenšoties nenoēst īstos burtus savām domām.
Bet ja neskaita tos brīžus, kad neko nesapratu un piecreiz pārlasīju bija interesanti.
Bet ja neskaita tos brīžus, kad neko nesapratu un piecreiz pārlasīju bija interesanti.
April 24, 2023
Great content, poor structure
May 11, 2025
Není to špatný, ale jako úvod do etiky to absolutně selhává. Je to spíš takový soubor Blackburnových velmi stručných (heh) esejí na různá témata z oblasti etiky, které ale nejsou vůbec špatné (jen teda jsou opravdu velmi krátké, až na jednu výjimku má každá esej zhruba 3-6 stran, cca jich je v knize pod 20). Nakonec jsem se rozhodl pro 3*, hlavně proto, že ty eseje jsou poměrně zajímavé, i když často až moc krátké. Jako "úvod do etiky" stěží 1*.
September 4, 2018
Good overview that would be a decent introduction for a layman. I admired its concision and plainspoken approach. I thought he did a good job of summarizing Kant and Aristotle in a couple paragraphs. It was a bit dry at times. Also, the foundation Blackburn lays for moral philosophy to shore it up against the depredations of the Grand Unifying Pessimisms he describes is a pretty thin one.
Kind of a bummer when the conclusion is there is no Reason for moral behavior, and all we have to build upon is a feeling that there is some shared consensus of things that are bad and things that are good. Obviously, if morality is built on nothing more than a nebulous shared intuition of right and wrong, then that consensus may shift over time in ways that make sense (extending rights to disenfranchised groups, trying to dismantle institutional sexism and racism) and ways that are a little dismaying (rising ethnonationalism, totalitarianism, etc.). But how do we critique positions that put forward a totalizing but repugnant moral vision, if there is no privileged purchase for moral thought arising from virtue, natural law, or otherwise? Maybe that's really where we're left, but I can't help feeling he cedes too much to relativism for my comfort. My moral intuition is that alt-right Nazis are bad, independent of a shared agreement that they are. Because what if that (has already) changed?
Kind of a bummer when the conclusion is there is no Reason for moral behavior, and all we have to build upon is a feeling that there is some shared consensus of things that are bad and things that are good. Obviously, if morality is built on nothing more than a nebulous shared intuition of right and wrong, then that consensus may shift over time in ways that make sense (extending rights to disenfranchised groups, trying to dismantle institutional sexism and racism) and ways that are a little dismaying (rising ethnonationalism, totalitarianism, etc.). But how do we critique positions that put forward a totalizing but repugnant moral vision, if there is no privileged purchase for moral thought arising from virtue, natural law, or otherwise? Maybe that's really where we're left, but I can't help feeling he cedes too much to relativism for my comfort. My moral intuition is that alt-right Nazis are bad, independent of a shared agreement that they are. Because what if that (has already) changed?
December 30, 2024
Partway through this, I didn't think I'd be giving it five stars. I was looking for a defensible position on ethics grounded in reason and wasn't finding it. But it all concluded so tidily with the explanation of not having Reasons (capital R) for moral positions, but we can have justified reasons.
Being my first real philosophy read outside of university (so, over a decade), I had to really slow down to consume this, and I still feel like much of it wasn't properly digested. With more philosophy study and familiarity with the context and language over the coming months or years, I plan to come back to this short read and expect I'll get even more on my second pass.
Being my first real philosophy read outside of university (so, over a decade), I had to really slow down to consume this, and I still feel like much of it wasn't properly digested. With more philosophy study and familiarity with the context and language over the coming months or years, I plan to come back to this short read and expect I'll get even more on my second pass.
April 28, 2025
Through sophomoric attempts at humor and bad-faith representations, Blackburn ensures that his myopic view of religion, specifically Christianity, is made known. He repeatedly dismisses the effects of religion on both the moral and ethical climate as nothing more than deceptive, authoritative swindling meant to take advantage of the masses and keep them subjugated under threat of eternal punishment. He does this with overused, sound-byte style rhetoric; a style of argument he warns readers of being swayed by, showing a profound lack of self-awareness. While Blackburn provides a window into many of the seminal figures and works within the study of ethics, this contribution to the discussion is a forgettable one.
January 5, 2020
Blackburn brings up some interesting points to reflect upon at the beginning of the book, but seems to leave very little open to discussion by ending things with his personal opinions (and Hume, a lot of Hume). The second half might be a little too unstructured for layman-readers who search for an introduction to ethics, but is a nice refresher if you already know a bit about ethical theories.
April 1, 2018
Starts out well, as Blackburn enumerates number of traditional problems for ethics (the failure of the Divine Command theory exemplified in Plato's Eutyphro, relativism, nihilism (think Nietzsche's attack on Christian "slave" morality), psychological challenges, evolutionary debunking accounts etc.
The remainder of the book is spent on trying to find a foundation for ethics and the Good Life. Blackburn covers the usual suspects, utilitarianism, Kantianism, Aristotelian eudaimonistic theories. In the end, this book is really just a decent short introduction.
The remainder of the book is spent on trying to find a foundation for ethics and the Good Life. Blackburn covers the usual suspects, utilitarianism, Kantianism, Aristotelian eudaimonistic theories. In the end, this book is really just a decent short introduction.
March 30, 2025
The author tried to introduce me to ethics, but instead, he introduced me to his ethical point of view and his values. Namely, the childish and inconsistent view of religion and a superficial role of the human spiritual dimension in ethics. I expected a lot more, but the author did not help me understand ethics better.
January 24, 2024
Finally done 🙏 the book tackles important topics but they’re way too shallow so a lot of further reading is recommended
The Seminar to the book was fun tho
The Seminar to the book was fun tho
August 14, 2024
Me gustó mucho.
Sobre todo el inicio y el capítulo del imperativo categórico
Sobre todo el inicio y el capítulo del imperativo categórico
January 29, 2019
This book opened well for me, meaning that I was able to follow much of the first half. During the second half of the book, the text felt increasingly abstract and remote, making it much more difficult to understand.
A lot of the book was historical in nature, discussing the contributions of Kant, Hume, Bentham, and other philosophers along the way. This was prominent enough in the book that the actual subtitle "A short introduction to ethics" could easily have been: "A short introduction to the history and development of ethics".
A lot of the book was historical in nature, discussing the contributions of Kant, Hume, Bentham, and other philosophers along the way. This was prominent enough in the book that the actual subtitle "A short introduction to ethics" could easily have been: "A short introduction to the history and development of ethics".
December 4, 2022
A wide-ranging and fresh introduction to ethics, written in non-academic language by an expert. Not recommended if you're not prepared to read carefully and are not humble enough to acknowledge that Blackburn knows what he's doing - which is far more than you. Otherwise, prepare to be given an authoritative and engaging entree to the subject.
August 12, 2022
I have two theories about this book: the first, that he wrote it in haste on a deadline and submitted it with only giving it a cursory proofread; the second, that he had written a book that was for too long for what the publishers had requested and thus quickly trimmed it down.
When I started the book, I loved it, thinking it would be a nice refresher on ethics. And on pp. 17-18, in his discussion of Plato, he offers a broad understanding of mythology:
Here Blackburn notes how mythological provides examples of bad action. But alas, in this short book, he provides all too few examples of the concepts he is illustrating, making it challenging for the reader to understand just what one needs to, what one should do to be good.
When I started the book, I loved it, thinking it would be a nice refresher on ethics. And on pp. 17-18, in his discussion of Plato, he offers a broad understanding of mythology:
The alternative suggested by Plato's dialogue is that religion gives a mythical clothing and mythical authority to a morality that is just there to begin with. Myth, in this sense, is not to be despised. It gives us symbolism and examples that engage our imaginations. It is the depository for humanity's endless attempts to struggle with death, desire, happiness, and good and evil. When an exile reminisces, she will remember the songs and poems and folktales of the homeland rather than its laws or its constitution. If the songs no longer speak to her, she is on the way to forgetting. Similarly, we may fear that when religion no longer speaks to us, we may be on our way to forgetting some important part of history and human experience. This may be a moral change, for better or worse. In this analysis, religion is not the foundation of ethics, but its showcase or its symbolic expression.When I was working on my PhD in Mythological Studies, I often wished we had a summary this succinct.
In other words, we drape our own standards with the stories of divine origin as a way of asserting their authority. We do not just just have a standard of conduct that forbids, say, murder, but we have mythological historical examples in which God expressed his displeasure at cases of murder.
Here Blackburn notes how mythological provides examples of bad action. But alas, in this short book, he provides all too few examples of the concepts he is illustrating, making it challenging for the reader to understand just what one needs to, what one should do to be good.
July 29, 2020
Livro muito bom de introdução à Ética, fugindo do formato tradicional.
O livro não adota o padrão em obras de introdução, cuja estruturação costuma tender para a organização cronológica/por escolas ou para o conjunto da obra de cada filósofo em si. Em vez disso, o livro toma como ponto de partida as próprias discussões da filosofia moral, seus impasses e obstáculos a elas. Por meio de discussões de fácil identificação para o leitor, o autor consegue engajar quem lê no debate técnico e filosófico.
O livro foge também à imparcialidade esperada em obras desse propósito. Frequentemente o autor resolve discussões com respostas de escolas com que concorda ou filósofos que admira (Hume, em particular), apresentando-as como verdades sem antes discutir os méritos e falhas de opiniões diversas. Mais que isso, o autor não aponta quando o faz, o que exige do leitor senso crítico técnico para discernir, o que, em um leitor de introdução ao campo de estudo, não costuma existir ainda. Esse é o principal defeito da obra, ainda que tenha sido uma escolha pela concisão, porque o debate proposto se empobrece.
Ainda assim, é essa estruturação que viabiliza o maior mérito do livro: mais que ensinar conceitos técnicos, despertar a consciência da aplicabilidade e o interesse pelo aprofundamento no estudo da Ética e suas questões. Dado o tamanho do livro, é um feito notável.
O livro não adota o padrão em obras de introdução, cuja estruturação costuma tender para a organização cronológica/por escolas ou para o conjunto da obra de cada filósofo em si. Em vez disso, o livro toma como ponto de partida as próprias discussões da filosofia moral, seus impasses e obstáculos a elas. Por meio de discussões de fácil identificação para o leitor, o autor consegue engajar quem lê no debate técnico e filosófico.
O livro foge também à imparcialidade esperada em obras desse propósito. Frequentemente o autor resolve discussões com respostas de escolas com que concorda ou filósofos que admira (Hume, em particular), apresentando-as como verdades sem antes discutir os méritos e falhas de opiniões diversas. Mais que isso, o autor não aponta quando o faz, o que exige do leitor senso crítico técnico para discernir, o que, em um leitor de introdução ao campo de estudo, não costuma existir ainda. Esse é o principal defeito da obra, ainda que tenha sido uma escolha pela concisão, porque o debate proposto se empobrece.
Ainda assim, é essa estruturação que viabiliza o maior mérito do livro: mais que ensinar conceitos técnicos, despertar a consciência da aplicabilidade e o interesse pelo aprofundamento no estudo da Ética e suas questões. Dado o tamanho do livro, é um feito notável.
Read
August 11, 2020A strong point of the book is the choice for starting it deploying the topics that hamper ethics. Relativism and egoism are two attitudes that hinder ethic thought. The relativist says: “This is good for you”. It is impossible build up a serious and systematic ethic argument before a relativist. Any argument will be good only for you. Something similar happens to egoism. Carefulness for the others imbues the moral philosophy. This is why ethics has no chance before self-referentialism.
Another strong point of the book is the clearness with which it displays the history of ethics. The maxim of utilitarianism is the bigger good for the greater number of people. This philosophy is present in modern ethic thought. The discursive ethics of the American philosopher Scanlon and the German thinker Habermas have a deep taste of utilitarianism, as it is observed by Blackburn. What I admire, respect and want that the other people fulfil is what we agree among all.
The author, however, does not choose a traditional ethic system from which are described in the book. He chooses benevolence, respect for the genre, and avoiding racism as ethic aims. Benevolence, a trait of the teachings of Confucius, is the minimum that the author proposes as something that anybody should praise, accomplish and want that the other people appreciate.
Another strong point of the book is the clearness with which it displays the history of ethics. The maxim of utilitarianism is the bigger good for the greater number of people. This philosophy is present in modern ethic thought. The discursive ethics of the American philosopher Scanlon and the German thinker Habermas have a deep taste of utilitarianism, as it is observed by Blackburn. What I admire, respect and want that the other people fulfil is what we agree among all.
The author, however, does not choose a traditional ethic system from which are described in the book. He chooses benevolence, respect for the genre, and avoiding racism as ethic aims. Benevolence, a trait of the teachings of Confucius, is the minimum that the author proposes as something that anybody should praise, accomplish and want that the other people appreciate.
November 10, 2021
The only critique of this absolutely wonderful book in my opinion is the structure of it. I somehow didn't really agreed with the three parts it was separated or didn't understood why it was. I think there must have been a better way to outline it.
This book catches you from the introduction itself and it's incredibly easy to follow. I really liked it as someone for who the topic of ethics is a quite recent endeavor. The often application of certain concepts on our society really puts them in perspective and it allows you to see the wickedness of ethics.
I do not think this is a book one can read and set aside as I regard it rather a guide to critical thinking itself for what it is to be a "good human'. Many sentences made me think for days, while others made things very clear. It also disregarded the statement of good vs bad.
From all the short introductions this particular one is my favorite exactly due ot it's simplicity, wittiness and the way it deals with such a heavy topic and lightweight manner. Def a recommendation.
This book catches you from the introduction itself and it's incredibly easy to follow. I really liked it as someone for who the topic of ethics is a quite recent endeavor. The often application of certain concepts on our society really puts them in perspective and it allows you to see the wickedness of ethics.
I do not think this is a book one can read and set aside as I regard it rather a guide to critical thinking itself for what it is to be a "good human'. Many sentences made me think for days, while others made things very clear. It also disregarded the statement of good vs bad.
From all the short introductions this particular one is my favorite exactly due ot it's simplicity, wittiness and the way it deals with such a heavy topic and lightweight manner. Def a recommendation.
April 6, 2023
It's fine.
Some good insights and a serviceable overview of basic concepts. I also appreciated the attempt to avoid or explain philosophical jargon that makes the field so daunting.
That said, it's barely cogent just as often as it's insightful. Some sections are so pithy that it takes quite a bit of effort to tie all of the tenuous logical threads together. It left me wanting more explanation, but probably not in the way Blackburn intended.
He also seems a little too comfortable taking some things for granted; "we can all agree X point of view is absurd." Can we? Why? Isn't the whole purpose to crack open these assumptions?
I get the sense this book is better served to the rusty philosophy major looking to brush up on the basics rather than someone like me who (regrettably) barely paid attention in high school philosophy and is looking for a basic but thorough entry point.
Some good insights and a serviceable overview of basic concepts. I also appreciated the attempt to avoid or explain philosophical jargon that makes the field so daunting.
That said, it's barely cogent just as often as it's insightful. Some sections are so pithy that it takes quite a bit of effort to tie all of the tenuous logical threads together. It left me wanting more explanation, but probably not in the way Blackburn intended.
He also seems a little too comfortable taking some things for granted; "we can all agree X point of view is absurd." Can we? Why? Isn't the whole purpose to crack open these assumptions?
I get the sense this book is better served to the rusty philosophy major looking to brush up on the basics rather than someone like me who (regrettably) barely paid attention in high school philosophy and is looking for a basic but thorough entry point.
June 12, 2025
It's difficult to cover ethics quickly. The book starts out well by discussing the assault on the very idea of ethics by nihilism, relativism, and skepticism. The treatment of Bentham's utilitarianism is very good. But after that, the book gets somewhat bogged down in what is admittedly an esoteric subject. It gives very little room to Rawls's ideas and their critics, which are at the heart of modern moral theory and its societal applications. The final chapter finally brings an interesting idea, which is that ethics is the willingness to come to a common understanding, if not an agreement, with others. It leaves out entirely Singer's work on animal ethics and effective altruism, which argues against the idea of common reason (and common humanity) as the basis of ethics.
June 17, 2025
Started off strongly and ended up at a meandering pace. It’s not a bad book if you take it as Simon Blackburn’s main sticking points in the field of ethics—he presents several paradoxes and responses, although not answers, and expresses his opinions distinctly and freely. As a general introduction to ethics it is neither impartial nor particularly clearly structured: why are we talking about euthanasia and not, say, the Nazi medical experiments? Either of these seems like something worth discussing in a book about ethics, but we get euthanasia specifically. We get abortion, but not patriarchy; we get imperialism, but not globalization. I guess the point is I don’t really understand how this book was structured—but for what it did cover, it was at least interesting in its own right.
November 8, 2018
While I realize it is not easy trying to do a "short" introduction to ethics, one of the most complicated topics in the world, I feel like this book really dropped the ball. I found the layout confusing, the tone condescending, and I don't feel like I really learned much at all. It felt somewhat like some random philosophy professor, who I don't know and don't particularly like, sat down in front of me, gave a two-hour, rambling talk about ethics and then abruptly got up and walked away. If you are like me, a layman with a deep interest in ethics and moral philosophy, I would suggest looking elsewhere to get your start.
April 19, 2020
We can never blame writers of introductory philosophy books for presenting their own theories in there somewhere. On the contrary, doing so is inevitable and dutiful as philosophers, and so I disagree with any reviewers criticising this book because of the last two chapters. I liked the theories he presented there, without necessarily agreeing with them.
Also, I think Blackburn writes so clearly and rhythmically that you can finish this book fairly quickly, uncommon for any philosophy book. Blackburn gives an honest and critical account of all ethical ideas and theories, so you really gain a broad overview of ethics. Overall, this book is nice.
Also, I think Blackburn writes so clearly and rhythmically that you can finish this book fairly quickly, uncommon for any philosophy book. Blackburn gives an honest and critical account of all ethical ideas and theories, so you really gain a broad overview of ethics. Overall, this book is nice.
February 12, 2021
Salah satu pengantar paling menyenangkan untuk mempelajari etika. Bahkan terasa santai sejak awal karena penulis tidak menjabarkan "Apa itu etika?" atau "Apa itu moralitas?" sebagaimana buku pengantar etika pada umumnya.
Kalau kamu menonton dorama guru etika berjudul "Koko wa Ima kara Rinri desu", mungkin buku ini paling mendekati sisi etis yang diajarkan Takayanagi-sensei. Lebih praktikal dari buku-nya DK atau Graphic Guide..
Kekurangan buku ini mungkin belum memasukkan masalah yang cukup pelik seperti Teori Banalitas Kejahatan oleh Hannah Arendt, kompas moral Ateisme, atau narsisme. Anyway, bintang 4 pas lah.. 😇✌️
Kalau kamu menonton dorama guru etika berjudul "Koko wa Ima kara Rinri desu", mungkin buku ini paling mendekati sisi etis yang diajarkan Takayanagi-sensei. Lebih praktikal dari buku-nya DK atau Graphic Guide..
Kekurangan buku ini mungkin belum memasukkan masalah yang cukup pelik seperti Teori Banalitas Kejahatan oleh Hannah Arendt, kompas moral Ateisme, atau narsisme. Anyway, bintang 4 pas lah.. 😇✌️
March 11, 2022
While he makes some good points, I didn’t love this book. I am not a philosopher, and that kind of abstract thinking really goes over my head and doesn’t interest me much, so I wouldn’t recommend this book unless you enjoy very philosophical discussion. It felt very circular, like there was no real point to the book or main argument the author was trying to make, and I found myself apathetic to a lot of his arguments purely because I couldn’t fully grasp or understand them. I would kind of consider it a waste of time, and wouldn’t encourage anyone to read it unless they have a particular interest in philosophical reasoning.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews