Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics

Rating:
Summary: Good enough
Review: "Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics" is just that, a slim volume about the philosophy of ethics and how philosophers think about this subject. It is an introduction for people who are brave (or fooligh) enough to dare to ask "Why be good?". Far to few people it seems have bothered to ask this question or assumed there is a patent answer without ever taking that answer out into the daylight to examine it.
Thinking ethically isn't done in a vacuum, it is of a process. When faced with an ethical problem, how do you seek a solution? Do you try to maximize the good for the most people? Do you try to identify universal laws and then try to follow them? Do you seek the advice of authority figures or authoritative books?
The text is split into three distance parts, the first addresses what Mr. Blackburn refers to "threats to ethics." These threats include relativism, skepticism, nihilism, challenges to free will, and altruism. Threats are largely those things which suggest that there is no real reason to be good at all; it's just something we as a people do. With each topic, he explains why they do not make ethics "impossible" after all. Mr. Blackburn explains how religion's declining influence does not harm ethical thinking, in fact he views this in a positive light in that without religion frees us to make independent choices, rather than to simply be automatons. Relativism is a more serious challenge, but when taken to its logical conclusion relativism refutes itself and removes the arguer from the conversation altogether.

The second section discusses particular attitudes about ethical issues including birth, death, desire and the meaning of life, pleasure, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, freedom from the bad, freedom and paternalism, and rights and natural rights. This second section is the weakest and seems to be ill connected to the other two. This weakness is there despite the fact that the author is talking about such hot topics as abortion and euthanasia.

The third section looks at the larger question of whether the idea of ethics rests on anything at all. This I believe is the topic that unsettles most people. The thinking goes that without a basis there is no reason for ethics. Mr. Blackburn shows this to not be the case. Mr. Blackburn believes people should actively engage in ethical dialogue in an effort to arrive at a common point of view for making ethical decisions. This of course means that there is no guarantee that such conversation will be successful, but at least there is a chance, and without such a dialogue, there is no chance at all.

The book is demanding of its reader. It demands that one actually look at one's ethical system and see it for what it is.

Rating:
Summary: Good enough
Review: "Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics" is just that, a slim volume about the philosophy of ethics and how philosophers think about this subject. It is an introduction for people who are brave (or fooligh) enough to dare to ask "Why be good?". Far to few people it seems have bothered to ask this question or assumed there is a patent answer without ever taking that answer out into the daylight to examine it.
Thinking ethically isn't done in a vacuum, it is of a process. When faced with an ethical problem, how do you seek a solution? Do you try to maximize the good for the most people? Do you try to identify universal laws and then try to follow them? Do you seek the advice of authority figures or authoritative books?
The text is split into three distance parts, the first addresses what Mr. Blackburn refers to "threats to ethics." These threats include relativism, skepticism, nihilism, challenges to free will, and altruism. Threats are largely those things which suggest that there is no real reason to be good at all; it's just something we as a people do. With each topic, he explains why they do not make ethics "impossible" after all. Mr. Blackburn explains how religion's declining influence does not harm ethical thinking, in fact he views this in a positive light in that without religion frees us to make independent choices, rather than to simply be automatons. Relativism is a more serious challenge, but when taken to its logical conclusion relativism refutes itself and removes the arguer from the conversation altogether.

The second section discusses particular attitudes about ethical issues including birth, death, desire and the meaning of life, pleasure, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, freedom from the bad, freedom and paternalism, and rights and natural rights. This second section is the weakest and seems to be ill connected to the other two. This weakness is there despite the fact that the author is talking about such hot topics as abortion and euthanasia.

The third section looks at the larger question of whether the idea of ethics rests on anything at all. This I believe is the topic that unsettles most people. The thinking goes that without a basis there is no reason for ethics. Mr. Blackburn shows this to not be the case. Mr. Blackburn believes people should actively engage in ethical dialogue in an effort to arrive at a common point of view for making ethical decisions. This of course means that there is no guarantee that such conversation will be successful, but at least there is a chance, and without such a dialogue, there is no chance at all.

The book is demanding of its reader. It demands that one actually look at one's ethical system and see it for what it is.

Rating:
Summary: Credibility Kaput
Review: After reading Blackburn's other book 'Think' I had to read 'Being good' but I was rather disappointed in the presentation of the subject matter. First of all I didn't like the fact that he is addressing the subject by starting with threats to ethics. I think including some more daily life examples would have made the book a lot more enjoyable. To hell with the theories of great philosophers of age old. I'd rather look at the problem without classifying it as falling into some particular school of thought. The peril of doing otherwise is that if your thinking on some subject, lets say 'a' [somehow] aligns with a particular school of thought then what about problem b,c and d? I'd rather have the author tell me what he thinks about it and leave it upto me to 'judge' for myself if I agree with it or not.

Anyhow, the book is still readable if you are looking for a more traditional approach to the subject at hand.

And the painting on the cover is refreshing..

Rating:
Summary: confused and defensive
Review: Blackburn's "short introduction to ethics" is an easy-to-absorb read for the novice, allowing one to learn about the field without venturing into long, heavily-written academic treatises. However, its contents seem misguided: the three sections focus on "threats to ethics", ethical issues, and the basis of ethics, and while the second section is appealing, the first and third seem misplaced.

Beginning an introduction to ethics by discussing its detractors, as Blackburn does in his opening "threats to ethics" section, seems out-of-order and defensive. Moreover, the subject matter exacerbates Blackburn's prose - wandering, disorganized, and vaguely preachy even when it lacks content.

The book's second section focuses on the issues that laypeople might associate with ethics: birth, death, the idea of happiness and what it constitutes. However, Blackburn's discussions are dominated by definition and exposition(i.e. "why is death important to people? why are we afraid of it? what have greek/roman/medieval philosophers said about its importance?") and ignore the modern field of ethics entirely. There is a chapter devoted to the major schools of modern ethics, but it doesn't tie into the rest of the book (so we don't learn whether, for example, Kant thought killing another person could ever be permissible). This incompleteness leaves the reader with no idea of what modern ethicists might say about humanity's most important concerns.

The book's third and final section discusses a number of attempts - both ancient and modern - to construct a universal, indisputable framework for ethics. This section is interesting but seems to miss the point: surely it would be more enjoyable and profitable to a reader who already know the basics of the field. Like the rest of "Being Good", it seems written not for the interested but uninformed audience it claims, but rather for the knowledgeable and skeptical reader who understands ethics and argues against its merit.

Rating:
Summary: confused and defensive
Review: Blackburn's "short introduction to ethics" is an easy-to-absorb read for the novice, allowing one to learn about the field without venturing into long, heavily-written academic treatises. However, its contents seem misguided: the three sections focus on "threats to ethics", ethical issues, and the basis of ethics, and while the second section is appealing, the first and third seem misplaced.

Beginning an introduction to ethics by discussing its detractors, as Blackburn does in his opening "threats to ethics" section, seems out-of-order and defensive. Moreover, the subject matter exacerbates Blackburn's prose - wandering, disorganized, and vaguely preachy even when it lacks content.

The book's second section focuses on the issues that laypeople might associate with ethics: birth, death, the idea of happiness and what it constitutes. However, Blackburn's discussions are dominated by definition and exposition(i.e. "why is death important to people? why are we afraid of it? what have greek/roman/medieval philosophers said about its importance?") and ignore the modern field of ethics entirely. There is a chapter devoted to the major schools of modern ethics, but it doesn't tie into the rest of the book (so we don't learn whether, for example, Kant thought killing another person could ever be permissible). This incompleteness leaves the reader with no idea of what modern ethicists might say about humanity's most important concerns.

The book's third and final section discusses a number of attempts - both ancient and modern - to construct a universal, indisputable framework for ethics. This section is interesting but seems to miss the point: surely it would be more enjoyable and profitable to a reader who already know the basics of the field. Like the rest of "Being Good", it seems written not for the interested but uninformed audience it claims, but rather for the knowledgeable and skeptical reader who understands ethics and argues against its merit.

Rating:
Summary: A cogent coverage of ethics
Review: Mr. Blackburn has suceeded in his intent. He sets forth the traditional 'threats' to morality, explaining their arguments and logical outcomes (ie Death of God, determinism). He then goes forward to outline his personal views of a secular humanist ethical philosophy. It is a clearly written introduction of modern ethics. I admit that I have not read the book in full. This review is based on the full reading of some chapters and skimming over the rest. Take it for what you will.

Rating:
Summary: Bartender philosophy
Review: No doubt Si Blackburn is a swell fellow to have a chat with at a Cambridge faculty tea -- if, that is, you hold all of the conventional, politically correct views expected of right-thinking university faculty. For example, early in "Being Good" (p.3), Blackburn declares that "Like America in the post-war McCarthy era, it [the Nazi regime] feared pollution from 'degenerates' outside or within." One need not be an admirer of the late Senator from Wisconsin to recognize that comparing Nazism to McCarthyism betrays an unbelievable moral obtuseness: for all of his many faults, Senator McCarthy, after all, did not murder anyone. Furthermore, the opening of the Soviet archives and release of the U.S. "Venona" intercepts have proven conclusively that there really were a number of Soviet agents who had infiltrated the U.S. government (see, e.g., Weinstein's and Vassiliev's "Haunted Wood," Klehr's and Haynes' "Venona," and Romerstein's and Breindel's "The Venona Secrets," all available on Amazon).

Later in the book (p. 103), Si announces that "the law does not protect...speech inciting racial and other hatreds..." Maybe not in merrie olde England, Si, but over here in the former colonies we have a First Amendment which does indeed protect even the right, say, of crazy neo-Nazis to present their views. This remark immediately precedes an incredibly muddled discussion of "natural rights," in which Blackburn admits (and demonstrates) a complete inability to make any coherent sense of the idea of natural rights at all. It isn't a difficult concept: you have a "natural right" to something if and only if you can naturally enjoy it absent involvement or interference from other human beings. Thus, you do not have a "natural right" to free medical care or food or housing, none of which you would possess naturally without the involvement of other human beings, but you do have a natural right not to be murdered, mugged, etc., since clearly you are free of such indignities absent involvement of other human beings. Whether "natural rights" are an adequate foundation for a political order is another question, but the concept itself is neither confusing nor difficult (for a modern exposition see Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty").

Elsewhere, Blackburn dogmatically declares, "'Slippery slope' reasoning needs to be resisted...everywhere." "Slippery slope" reasoning is the sort of argument that claims that if we begin by depriving the Jews of basic civil rights and making them second-class citizens we risk sliding down a "slippery slope" to a point where we finally commit the atrocity of murdering millions of Jews: therefore, we must never start on the "slippery slope" in the first place. As this historical example indicates, contrary to Blackburn's blanket anathema, "slippery slope" arguments are sometimes very appropriate indeed.

But does any of this matter? Isn't an ethical theorist entitled to a few silly remarks if his overarching grand theory provides a framework for the ethical life?

The problem is that the central theme of Blackburn's book is that there is no such grand overarching framework. The best we can do, he argues, is muddle around, consider individual issues, and try to hammer out some sensible conclusion. This is what Si himself does in this book, and, as the previous examples demonstrate, he does it incredibly badly.

Blackburn sums up his perspective in his concluding section, "...we need recognition in the eyes of others...From within our self-understanding, we can admit that these standards are ours--just ours." In the end, ethics as Si presents it is just shoddy self-satisfaction and a sleazy bid for social recognition.

The Western philosophical tradition, going back to Aristotle, took a less flippant view. It held that by acknowledging the basic biological and metaphysical fact of man's nature as a rational animal we can understand that certain moral rules, values, and virtues enable humans living in communities to exercise their rational nature in pursuit of survival and happiness.

This was the starting point of ethics: what exactly are the appropriate rules, values, and virtues which show respect for rational beings? And, secondly, once we have discovered these rules, values, and virtues, what can and should induce people to adhere to these rules, pursue these values, and develop these virtues? Those questions posed the subject matter of ethics. Ethics was not a parlor game to enable over-paid, under-worked Cambridge dons to feel good about themselves; ethics was about the constraints imposed upon human life and human communities by the facts of human nature.

To be sure, "Being Good" is at least readable if vapid; whereas, most twentieth-century academic philosophers were both inane and unreadable.

But, in most respects, Blackburn's facile and silly little book is indeed representative of the disastrous industry of academic philosophical ethics which played its own small role in the tragedies of the twentieth century.

Don't waste your time and money -- you can get equally good insights on ethics faster and cheaper from the average bartender. If you want to begin grappling with the real issues of ethics, try Alan Donagan's "The Theory of Morality," Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty," John Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong," Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness," and Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal." Those five authors differ on a host of issues, but at least they understand that ethics is not just a self-congratulatory game of feeling good about yourself and your fellow faculty members.

Rating:
Summary: An introduction to ethics
Review: Not my favorite introduction to ethics; for that I'd start with Frankena's *Ethics*. But this one is written in a livelier style.

Rating:
Summary: Ethics, Short and Clear
Review: Philosophy is important. "What is our place in the universe?" is not just a scientific question. What is the meaning of life, how can we be happy, do gods make a difference? All are good philosophical questions, not really to be left just to professional philosophers. It has taken centuries, but philosophers led us into the idea that humans have certain rights, something we take for granted now although we are not always good at ensuring every human gets the rights that are due. We can allow that human well-being is pretty much the gold standard in assessing values, and perhaps we take into account animal well-being, as well as the well-being of the Earth as a biological system. We think we can behave morally, but we have doubts that this can occur without gods of some sort. Gods or not, we sense that there is some larger meaning, and that selfishness just won't do, but selfishness seems to run a great deal of the world. It wouldn't be a bad thing if we could think about these ethical, philosophical issues with more clarity.

And so professional philosopher Simon Blackburn has given us _Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics_ (Oxford University Press). He has distilled thousands of years of thinking on ethical issues by various philosophers into a slim book. It may not be a Guide for Living covering every situation, but it is an admirable introduction about how philosophers think about such matters, and where we ought to look for ethical answers. His book is witty and pithy, and demonstrates that thinking about big ideas can be fun. But we are largely on our own in this endeavor. Socrates, in Plato's _Euthyphro_, provided the classic challenge to the idea that ethics must have a religious foundation. Whatever gods there are that choose right and wrong for us cannot do so arbitrarily; they have to select such things correctly. Most gods have a system that demonstrates that we should act correctly because of fear of punishment if we don't, or desire for reward if we do. This distorts behavior into "a religious cost-benefit analysis." Kant said true virtue was living up to a rule out of respect for that rule, not on post-mortem consequences. It is up to us to make judgements on what rules are worth living up to. Blackburn takes us through the pitfalls of relativism, that there is no one truth but only the different truths of different communities and times. He discusses our current obsession with rights, and even includes as an appendix the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human rights. Death, birth, desire, and pleasure all have chapters in his work, all fitting essays within the larger whole.

Hume (whom Blackburn seems mostly to follow) said that rational, scientific proof of the virtue of an action is not possible. Blackburn does not despair over what others have seen as this unsafe or uncomforting doctrine. We share some values, and we can judge actions as reasonable or not by referring to those shared values. Blackburn (again with Hume) argues that the ultimate standard for judging an action is its capacity to promote happiness. He unites this with the modern philosophical ideas of contracts between humans and the state, both caring about such things as liberty and safety, in a dialogue to find common points of view. Blackburn's view is optimistic. We have made progress with sensitivity to the environment, to sexual differences, and to toleration of cultural differences. "If we are careful, and mature, and imaginative, and fair, and nice, and lucky, the moral mirror in which we gaze at ourselves may not show us saints. But it need not show us monsters, either."

Rating:
Summary: Ethics Dissembled (Not)
Review: This is a very easy to read book of Ethics. I read it in about a week (mysteries or science fiction take two days; constitutional law books take forever), so it is not a long book, but a lot of easy to understand information is packed in it. To anyone who studies Ethics, it may be to simple, but to me, who has barely encountered the notion at all, the ease of understanding was important. There are parts that I read a couple three times to understand, and parts that just went over my head, but these parts are few and far between. For the most part, I could understand the ideas he wrote about. The sad thing was that I have come away with the idea that there is no Ethics but what we bring to it. But then, what good is a man's grasp if it cannot exceed his reach? No wonder they still study Ethics: they are trying to bring some universal Ethics down to us from on high.