<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Very concise, clear and thought provoking
Review: Gensler's introduction to ethics is superb. I majored in philosophy over 20 years ago and have since wandered off into the health professions. It was a sheer pleasure to pick up this book and to be able to readily grasp what the two major fields of ethics are about (metaethics and normative ethics) and to easily rediscover competing ethical positions. Gensler brings the subject alive by showing how different ethical positions handle (or fail to handle) such things as racism. There are interesting study questions and neat website (with problems and answers) that further develops the topic.If you want to learn to seriously question your own values in a rational manner as philosophers do, then this pertinent books is for you!
Rating:
Summary: Very concise, clear and thought provoking
Review: Gensler, prof . of philo. at John Carrol U., has written here a book that is both very clear, formal and yet appealing as each chapter begins with the thoughts of the same fictional character and then deals with them. Gensler refers also to some online exercises he has put on his site. What may be a limitation with the book is that it is mostly limited to the question "how do we know what to do?" (which is extensively covered by a survey all the theories). This is how I understand why Gensler rejected supernaturalism (divine command). If he had dealt with the reality of right and wrong, then he would probably have admitted that without a purposeful mind beyond the cosmos there would be no right/wrong, that it would not matter if all humans would disappear in awful sufferings, or whatever. In his synthesis (final) chapter, Gensler seems to advocate the golden rule, but the reader may be given the impression he advocates a kind of situation ethics , because of another issue that was again not really dealt with (conflict between duties, etc.). For a more systematic (but dryer and more difficult) work, I would recommend Norman Geisler's Introduction to philosophy or his Ethics. Anyway I found Gensler's book excellent. A more fun and less formal intro. is Steve Wilkens' Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics.
Rating: 
Summary: Spare yourself: Go to the sources
Review: I can only see one use for this book: as a text for a class where the set exercises are to pick apart the extremely suspect logic of Genslers arguments. For example, Gensler's argument against racism (pp. 91-93) does not succeed. Since consistency does not straightforwardly relate to truth, it is possible for a racist to formulate an entirely consistent view, as follows. In Gensler's first part, the racist can merely equate inferiority with race. When Gensler proposes various thought experiments in order to show that the racist is inconsistent, the racist can merely point out that Gensler is keeping an underlying essence of race in his arguments, accept Gensler's conclusions and retain the view that the particular race is to be treated poorly. Gensler thus fails to accept his earlier consideration of consistency as distinct from proveability. I found myself scratching my head in likewise fashion at many of Gensler's sweeping statements. An example: He states (p. 88), unqualified, that consistency "often points us toward the truth". This may be true, but in a work that purports to show exactly why considerations such as this are necessarily true, it fails dramatically to demonstrate anything more than a sophisticated circular argument. Finally, while the summaries of various metaethical positions are indeed short and concise, I found they failed to illuminate. Gensler has managed to dumb down the complexity of many of the positions he examines to such an extent that what we are left with is not summary but parody. They certainly cannot be used to formulate anything more than a superficial case for Gensler's own position. In conclusion, I'd recommend going to a good philosophical encyclopaedia for an overview of contemporary metaethics -- there you can find the level of detail you seek, while sparing yourself reading Gensler's own arguments.
Rating:
Summary: Spare yourself: Go to the sources
Review: I can only see one use for this book: as a text for a class where the set exercises are to pick apart the extremely suspect logic of Genslers arguments. For example, Gensler's argument against racism (pp. 91-93) does not succeed. Since consistency does not straightforwardly relate to truth, it is possible for a racist to formulate an entirely consistent view, as follows. In Gensler's first part, the racist can merely equate inferiority with race. When Gensler proposes various thought experiments in order to show that the racist is inconsistent, the racist can merely point out that Gensler is keeping an underlying essence of race in his arguments, accept Gensler's conclusions and retain the view that the particular race is to be treated poorly. Gensler thus fails to accept his earlier consideration of consistency as distinct from proveability. I found myself scratching my head in likewise fashion at many of Gensler's sweeping statements. An example: He states (p. 88), unqualified, that consistency "often points us toward the truth". This may be true, but in a work that purports to show exactly why considerations such as this are necessarily true, it fails dramatically to demonstrate anything more than a sophisticated circular argument. Finally, while the summaries of various metaethical positions are indeed short and concise, I found they failed to illuminate. Gensler has managed to dumb down the complexity of many of the positions he examines to such an extent that what we are left with is not summary but parody. They certainly cannot be used to formulate anything more than a superficial case for Gensler's own position. In conclusion, I'd recommend going to a good philosophical encyclopaedia for an overview of contemporary metaethics -- there you can find the level of detail you seek, while sparing yourself reading Gensler's own arguments.
Rating: 
Summary: Spare yourself: do NOT go to the sources
Review: Shure, if you're already familiar with ethics you might find it's rather a glancy look into The Morale. But mind you: it's an introduction - meaning it's set up for people who are interested in ethics, but have no prior knowledge about this topic. To these people it gives them a fair look at ethics. If they're really interested Gensler gives them plenty references to go out and buy the sources.
I do agree though that it's kind of annoying that Gensler does not refrain from pushing the reader in a certain kind of ethical direction. Overall, I give it 4 stars out of 5.
<< 1 >>
| 
