Rating: 
Summary: Specious sophism, not sound philosophy
Review: James Rachels is not only biased but shows himself to be intellectually dishonest in his book, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy". For a man who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, the sloppiness of his premise justifying abortion is inexcusable. You had better know how to wear a good pair of discerning hip waders while wading through his pap or you're going to get tainted with the stuff Rachels is piled higher and deeper in. Specious sophism not sound philosophy. In chapter 3 Rachels uses homosexuality to illustrate subjectivism in ethics. Jerry Falwell is Rachels main antagonist against homosexuality. Rachels states that, "when someone such as Falwell says that homosexuality is wrong, he is not stating a fact about homosexuality. Instead, he is merely saying something about his feelings toward it." Rachels carries on ad nauseam with subtle ridicule of Falwell's position against homosexuality finally stating, "Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell's point of view, but I do not know what they could be." How convenient and intellectually dishonest of Rachels to ignore the fact that Falwell obviously reads the Bible, which states "...and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."1 Timothy 1:10,11 So, is Rachels ignorant of the existence of scripture when he stated, "Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell's point of view, but I do not know what they could be." Chapter 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?", shows that Rachels is not ignorant of scripture when he justifies abortion with Exodus 21:22. pg 67 "The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific judgment about the moral status of fetuses occurs in the 21st chapter of Exodus. ... Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid to her husband. Murder was not a category that included fetuses. The Law of Israel apparently regarded fetuses as something less than full human beings." Rachels might have a PH.D, but he is no Hebrew scholar. The mistranslation of "yatsa" as miscarriage in the NAS version implies the death of the fetus, but it still takes conjecture and speculation on Rachels part to conclude that the baby definitely died upon leaving the mother early. With easy access to other biblical translations and the Internet (just type Exodus 21:22 in a search engine like GOOGLE) there is no excuse for Dr. Rachels shoddy academic discourse on such a salient issue in today's society.
Rating:
Summary: Specious sophism, not sound philosophy
Review: James Rachels is not only biased but shows himself to be intellectually dishonest in his book, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy". For a man who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, the sloppiness of his premise justifying abortion is inexcusable. You had better know how to wear a good pair of discerning hip waders while wading through his pap or you're going to get tainted with the stuff Rachels is piled higher and deeper in. Specious sophism not sound philosophy. In chapter 3 Rachels uses homosexuality to illustrate subjectivism in ethics. Jerry Falwell is Rachels main antagonist against homosexuality. Rachels states that, "when someone such as Falwell says that homosexuality is wrong, he is not stating a fact about homosexuality. Instead, he is merely saying something about his feelings toward it." Rachels carries on ad nauseam with subtle ridicule of Falwell's position against homosexuality finally stating, "Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell's point of view, but I do not know what they could be." How convenient and intellectually dishonest of Rachels to ignore the fact that Falwell obviously reads the Bible, which states "...and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."1 Timothy 1:10,11 So, is Rachels ignorant of the existence of scripture when he stated, "Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell's point of view, but I do not know what they could be." Chapter 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?", shows that Rachels is not ignorant of scripture when he justifies abortion with Exodus 21:22. pg 67 "The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific judgment about the moral status of fetuses occurs in the 21st chapter of Exodus. ... Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid to her husband. Murder was not a category that included fetuses. The Law of Israel apparently regarded fetuses as something less than full human beings." Rachels might have a PH.D, but he is no Hebrew scholar. The mistranslation of "yatsa" as miscarriage in the NAS version implies the death of the fetus, but it still takes conjecture and speculation on Rachels part to conclude that the baby definitely died upon leaving the mother early. With easy access to other biblical translations and the Internet (just type Exodus 21:22 in a search engine like GOOGLE) there is no excuse for Dr. Rachels shoddy academic discourse on such a salient issue in today's society.
Rating: 
Summary: Mr. Robert vs. Dr. Rachels
Review: Mr. Robert, author of the review, "Specious sophism, not sound philosophy", apparently disagrees with Rachels' statement that, "perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell's point of view but I do not know what they could be." Mr. Robert proceeds to quote scripture in an attempt to discredit Rachels' honest and perfectly sound statement.
The problem Mr. Robert faces here is that a quotation of scripture is not an argument, and an argument in support of Falwell's position clearly is needed in this situation to discredit Rachels' statement. Unfortunately for Mr. Robert's faithful plight, the Bible is not a source of logically sound arguments that could hold up in an introduction course to philosophy.
It appears that Mr. Robert has accepted the Bible (he fails to clarify which version) in faith as being a source of absolute truth which requires no arguments in support of its statements, as they are divine truths that God communicated to the authors of the Bible. Of course, a person can choose to believe anything, and whatever they decide to believe, whether it is right or wrong or inconsequential cannot be arbitrarily used in replacement of a sound argument.
It is my insignificant personal opinion that David Robert is better suited for the tedium of seminary than the joy of philosophy, which he sadly tries to force into the mold of his own beliefs.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Introductory Text
Review: People often argue about particular moral issues, and often enter into debates with entirely different conceptions of how morality works, with different metaethical frameworks. Some people believe that which is moral is that which maximizes happiness, while other people believe that there are absolute moral rules which should never be transgressed (even if this were to increase happiness), still others believe that there are no objective, universal moral principles at all. This book is a clear and thorough introduction to moral philosophy. Rachels explores Cultural Relativism, Subjectivism, Divine Command Theory, Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Social Contract Theory, Virtue Ethics and other currently relevant issues in ethics. Each ethical theory is described quite systematically and Rachels offers the popular arguments both for and against each theory. But the text isn't dry or tiring; the book is enjoyable and easy to read, and Rachels offers many colourful examples to illustrate his points. As with almost all philosophy texts, introductory or otherwise, and especially when ethics is the subject and such topics as affirmative action and abortion are discussed, albeit briefly, don't expect to agree with every argument of the author. The book ends with suggestions for further reading for each chapter, which may also be very helpful. This book was prescribed for a course in moral philosophy I attended, but I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. This review refers to the third edition of this book.
Rating: 
Summary: About Professor Rachels's life and work
Review: Professor Rachels recently passed away from cancer (Sept. 6, 2003). Information about his life and work, and the eulogies given at his funeral, are avaiable here:
http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/jimbo.htm
Professor Rachels was a great man; all who read his books and learned from him would surely agree. He is, and will be, missed.
Rating:
Summary: About Professor Rachels's life and work
Review: Professor Rachels recently passed away from cancer (Sept. 6, 2003). Information about his life and work, and the eulogies given at his funeral, are avaiable here:
http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/jimbo.htm
Professor Rachels was a great man; all who read his books and learned from him would surely agree. He is, and will be, missed.
Rating:
Summary: Great Introductory Text
Review: Supralapsiarian's comments are a bit unfair to Rachels. The book overall is very thought-provoking, despite the occasional strawman (mostly due to his secular bias). It *is* weak on abortion, homosexuality, religious morality, and the divine command theory for example. Rachels picks the most oversimplified positions in these areas to criticize.
There is no real problem with "reification of Reason" though. It's just useful shorthand. All his statements about Reason (capital R) can be translated into statements about reason and reasons (lower case r). And he does not set himself up as "a stable throne in the realm of moral epistemology". He says repeatedly things like:
"Moral truths are truths of reason. Such truths are objective in the sense that they are true independently of what we might want or think."
"Reason says what it says, regardless of our opinions or desires".
These are not statements of a subjectivist about reason or morality, or someone just projecting his own opinions or desires. He regards the relationship between moral conclusions and moral reasons as in some sense necessary, and that is a respectable view. It's analogous to the relationship between the conclusion that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F" and statements about this or that sample of copper melting at 1984 degrees F: "Reason" (i.e. objective rules of reasoning) determines that connection, not us (by what we believe or desire). Regardless of our beliefs or desires, the fact that this or that sample of copper melts at 1984 degrees F *is* (part of) a good reason for thinking that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F".
Similarly, there are good and sometimes conclusive reasons for some moral views (ex. see his section on proof in Ethics), and those are good reasons regardless of what anyone (himself included) believes or desires. In fact, a case can be made for saying that Rachels accepts a sort of Natural Law Theory (a theory that he claims to reject).
Rating:
Summary: A great introduction to moral philosophy.
Review: This book has helped me enormously to clarify and articulate my own sense of ethics. Somehow, I escaped college without ever having taken a philosophy class. I've always considered myself to be a "good" person, a "moral" person. But as one with a scientific and rational mind, I could not accept the more magical elements of religion. Nor could I find any value in religion's tendency to promote orthodoxies of intolerance. As James Rachels says, the representatives of organized religion are viewed as the arbiters of morality in this country. My own experience tells me that if you have no religious affiliation, you are likely to be considered a person with no, or at best "flaky," morals. This book has given me a solid framework for understanding how one can lead a moral life without having to subscribe to a fantastical belief system. Don't miss the "Suggestions for Further Reading" at the end of the book. It contains terrific guidance for further inquiry.
Rating:
Summary: Useful, but not complete
Review: This book is excellent as an introductory text both because Rachels covers many moral positions eloquently, and due to his own sometimes fallacious reasoning. His argument in chapter one for a minimum conception of morality as rational, for example, is a clear example of circular reasoning, and is worth studying in depth as the sort of philosophical argumentation to avoid (I'd like to add here that I agree with his minimum conception to a point, I just don't appreciate his argumentation for it). Still, the issues discussed in that same chapter are important ones, and taken outside of the context of his argument for a minimum conception of morality are fairly treated and well-discussed. Many of the other chapters, likewise, follow similar paths.
That said, there are several chapters that stand out as particularly well treated, where his argumentation is clear, concise, and rigorous. Examples include chapter four: "Does Morality Depend on Religion?", chapter five: "Psychological Egoism", chapter nine: "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?", chapter ten: "Kant and Respect for Persons", and chapter eleven: "The Idea of a Social Contract".
All in all it is a worthwhile read, and excellent as an introduction, so long as you don't take his argumentation for his particular position too seriously and so long as you intend to do further reading on the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Good but very incomplete
Review: This is a lucid book, written in plain language, and with lots of examples that show why and how ethical ideas are relevant. Many of these examples are taken from contemporary ethical questions, not all of them resolved, such as racism, female circumcision, abortion, animal rights, the reason for law, the deterrence of criminals, homosexuality, and more. Often complex arguments are distilled and clarified in short syllogisms. Argument in pro and in contra of the different theories are given dispassionately and in way that I found very interesting and thought provoking. For example after explaining one of the most important theories, utilitarianism, arguments are given that attack it, then arguments that defend it against those attacks, arguments against the defense, and so on. In each round of discussion the theory becomes richer and we feel we get a better understanding of it. Even though I greatly enjoyed reading this book, I was also very disappointed in that it did not go far enough or deep enough. The book completely overlooks ethics born from religion even though what little moral teaching reaches most people comes from religion. Religious ethical precepts are a real force today both for good and evil, even in the most secular societies. I would love to have Rachels analyze and compare religious theories as he did with the philosophical theories. This omission is quite conscious, and the reason given is flimsy: the divine command theory is roundly rejected because God commands what is right, not something is right because God commands it, and therefore we need discuss only what is right without worrying what the great religious traditions have to say about ethics. To a religious person this argument is absurd: not only the ethical commands but also our sense and reason about ethics is created by God. So the author ignores many wonderful ethical ideas that deserve discussion and becomes color blind to a large chunk of ethical thought... These omissions loom so large, precisely because this is such an important subject matter. Only three stars then, because this well written book could be so much more.
|
