Ethics for Life: A Text with Readings

Rating:
Summary: A Thoughtful Text
Review: To say any race or gender would be put off by Judith Boss' presentation of ethical theories and case studies is ridiculous. Boss presents students with a humanizing and compelling look at the lives and work of Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, all classics in the standard Western presentation of ethics. However, she also includes compelling portrayals of Black Elk, Mencius, Ayn Rand, Mahatma Gandhi, Carol Gilligan, and the Buddha. She truly offers introductory students a wide scope of perspectives that is both interdisciplinary and multicultural. There is nothing to fear in this. Having taught this book on the high school level, students are quick to point out Boss' own ethical stand (and she does take them). We debate and wrestle with her perspective in class. For example, while Boss articulates the philosophical framework of ethical subjectivism (including the related philosophy of emotivism and ethical skepticism) with care, she takes a firm stand against this view. No one would be able to miss this. As a teacher, I want my students to not only critique and think deeply about the content of a text, but also the view of the writer who composed it. I also recommend the work of ethicists Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry in addition to using specific case studies when teaching and introductory course on ethics. However Boss' text can be a key cornerstone to a well-taught course and one negative review shouldn't steer people away from taking the time to benefit from her thoughtful work.

Rating:
Summary: ETHICS or INDOCTRINATION?
Review: Warning to all white males reared in a Western culture: if you read this book and take it seriously, guilt feelings could cause you to jump from the nearest bridge. It is difficult to tell if Ms Boss is a socialist, a Buddhist or both, but one thing we do know is that throughout her book she promotes Eastern, feel-good philosophies and blames white males, capitalism and Western philosophy for all the evils in the world. Boss tries to hide her slant by using subtle adjectives and sometimes mixing her opinion in with quotes from other writers--but she doesn't try hard enough, and her biased opinion soon becomes obvious. Early on she writes: "...genuine praxis demands a shift away from the manner in which an individual routinely sees the world, to a viewing of the world through the eyes of the collective 'we'....We will use this broader definition of analysis throughout this text" (41). Unfortunately, Boss remains true to her word, and her "analysis" turns into unbalanced rhetoric that appears to be an effort to indoctrinate young, impressionable students to her socialistic way of viewing the world's moral problems. Due to lack of space, I can give only a few examples. "Feminists, animal rights activists, and social reformers, for example, are often snubbed by academics as not being 'real' philosophers" (42). If this were true, books like Boss's would not sell. I suppose this is an effort to draw sympathy by making these people appear as underdogs. However, in today's universities, most "academics" are feminists, animal rights activists and social reformers. Do they snub themselves? "Some men, for example, feel that they are entitled to have the last word" (47). Does this mean three men? a thousand? ten million? It would be just as truthful, if not more so, to say that some women feel they are entitled to the last word. "Men may have kept women out of the dog-eat-dog job market out of consideration for their well being, but the effect has been harmful to women" (51). With the rising number of divorces, single mothers, children in day-care instead of home where they would get individual love and attention, and with the rising number of women with heart disease and stress related illnesses, the harmful effect on women (and children) could be easily argued. "Our [U.S.] Constitution has allowed slavery and prevented women from voting and, to this day, allows people to own handguns...." (66). No matter which side a person takes on the controversial gun ownership issue, to lump two evils in with a highly debatable topic can be nothing but an attempt to manipulate young minds. "The neglect of both philosophers and psychologists to take the women's perspective into account has created the false impression that women are morally deficient compared to men" (218). Morally deficient? In the past a minority of white men might have thought this was true, but to make this statement in the 21st century is absurd and only another cry for sympathy. Today, most men welcome the blending of caring and intuitive women's views into a philosophy that has been dominated by white men. But to tear down one in order to promote the other is counterproductive. In her effort to denigrate the United States and everything Western, Boss uses the same sort of rhetoric communists used in the early 20th century when they were trying to sell socialism to poor field workers: "To respond to the plight of people who are starving by telling them to act in ways to promote their own self-interest is nothing but a meaningless gesture" (257). Should they act in ways that do not promote self-interest? "...capitalism turns labor into a commodity--thereby reducing the workers to objects who must sell their labors to capitalists to survive" (258). This statement would be more truthful if it had been written: Capitalism turns an individual's labor into a valuable commodity--thereby raising the individual to the level of a trader who can sell his/her labor to the highest bidder--for capitalism cannot survive without labor. I suppose Boss believes she can get away with cheap shots like this by often using the adjective, laissez-faire, when referring to capitalism. This tripe was easy to sell to poor, uneducated field workers, but the fall of communist Russia and the rise of capitalism has proved it wrong-headed and difficult to sell to bright college students. In the preface of her book, Boss admits that students pass ethic courses, but then she adds: "When confronted with real-life moral issues, most students simply revert back to their earlier forms of reasoning based on cultural norms or self-interest" (vii). There's that pesky self-interest problem again. Boss should consider that these students might be learning more than she gives them credit for. Perhaps students simply reject the socialistic, feel-good morals that universities try to feed them. Perhaps Boss should take heed of her own words--under the subheading of Rhetoric, she states: "Some people are so emotionally invested in certain opinions on moral issues that they may, unknowingly, manipulate their arguments to 'prove' a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise" (55).