Rating: 
Summary: Well-intended, but biased
Review: This little book is certainly an easy-to-read and easy-to-understand introductory guide to different moral theories and problems. The author tries to balance his accounts fairly well, but he is biased against Catholic-Christian thought, though I am quite sure this was not his intention. In his section about abortion, for instance, he cites no support for some of his controversial assertions concerning the Church "changing" its teaching on abortion, and in his section on Natural Law, he dismisses the Natural Law theory rather quickly and without much ado, though the theory of Natual Law ought to be, from an objective point-of-view, be given much more credit. It was, after all, quite an influential theory until lately, and there IS a lot of evidence to support it (I encourage readers to get the book "50 Questions on the Natural Law" by Charles E. Rice, Ph.D.). However, the current secular and philosophical world is strongly anti-Natural-Law, and I feel this Rachels has let influence him to dismiss it without much serious discussion or weighing of evidence.However, most of the rest of the book is a well-written attempt to introduce college students to the many conflicts and tenets in ethics, even though every now and then he does presuppose or make some unjustified claims.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Let The Title Scare You Away
Review: This slim volume is an excellent introduction to ethics. It is geared to the layman, and is an eminently readable exposition of all the main schools of moral thought. Author Rachels presents each ethical theory, and then presents arguments favoring and opposing the concept. He also applies ethical theories to such concrete problems as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and civil disobedience. If you like mind challenging ideas than you will enjoy this book. At the least you will find that all is not as it seems in the world of moral behavior. All of the main schools of thought are discussed including religious theories, cultural relativism, egoism and utilitarianism. It's an engrossing book that may easily change the way you think. Consider cultural relativism. Is it always wrong to kill? Years ago it was found that nomadic Eskimos often killed newborn infants. A child requires breast nourishment for four years in the cold north, and is carried and sheltered in the mother's parka as the family constantly travels. It is not feasible for a mother to carry, protect, and feed two infants at one time. The entire group would face extinction if too many infants were allowed to grow. Are these Eskimos to be considered immoral? If you have an open mind, this is a great opportunity to learn that ethical behavior is not as rigidly defined as you may have thought.
| 
