Rating: 
Summary: Cohen brings a "town square" approach to ethics
Review: (First, the full disclosure: I am in the acknowledgments for this book, because the Samuel Johnson quotations throughout this book were drawn from my Johnson web site. But we hardly know each other.)Although this book collects many of the columns Cohen has written for the New York Times and in syndication (as "The Ethicist" and "Everyday Ethics," respectively), this book is far more than just the original columns. Added here is more overview and dialog (which a brief newspaper column would never accommodate). Some of the back and forth is in the original Q&A format of the column, but it's been augmented by postscripts and perspectives from others in the fields related to the original questions. Thus, while Cohen's answers are basically prescriptions and brief explorations, the subsequent discussions from Cohen and the others round the issues out. So, in a sense, it becomes a town-square-type discussion you won't see in some other books. The really interesting part is that, by engaging others, Cohen opens it up to more discussion and thought from -you.- Cohen doesn't always read like the final word, and you may find that this involving book provokes discussions in your own home. (This past weekend, a question surrounding how much to include on a resume led to a good 20 minute discussion between friends.) Any time a book gets you to think, and then actually leaves its original medium on the page to become part of a broader discussion, is pretty impressive, if you ask me. So many other books of this ilk come off as absolute pontifications, that they seem to do all the thinking for you, and for me that's not enough.
Rating:
Summary: Instructive and entertaining. Couldn't put it down.
Review: And when I finished reading it a few days after I'd gotten it I found myself returning to sections to revisit the disputes and advice. I bought this book for practical help in how to think beyond my first reaction to difficult real life moral problems -- there's nothing else out there like it! -- and it really delivered. The Ethicist here strikes just the right balance between decisive advice and nuance, humor and seriousness, and his views and others', not always in agreement, but always helpful in presenting fresh perspectives on the issues. Great intro, fabulous "guest ethicists," and the writing, for which Cohen is rightly admired, is a pleasure throughout: clever, provocative, and thoughtful. I learned a lot from it. And it was fun.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: As expected, a book expounding one man's "solution" to ethical dilemmas would elicit a wide range of opinions. I agree somewhat with some of Mr. Cohen's detractors arguments regarding his opinions and even some of his personal motivations. However, that is not the only criterion by which such a book should be judged.
What I like about the book is the exposition of a wide range of personal and professional dilemmas, many of which I would never think about. While I don't personally agree with the authors response all of the time, I appreciate the opportunity to form opinions of my own should a similar or analogous situation arise in my own life. It is for inclusion of a wide range of thought-provoking situations that I give this book "4".
Rating: 
Summary: Cohen Knows Less About Ethics ...
Review: Cohen should read a dictionary before writing about ethics. Self-promoting, and as is with most New York Times journalists, knowledge of subject matter and/or credentials for pontificating are sorely lacking.
Rating:
Summary: The irony of the hypocritical ethicist
Review: Everyone has their own opinons about "right from wrong" and Randy Cohen has written a book about his. This in fine, but only if your reasoning and rationales are consistent. This is not always the case with Mr. Cohen. In the case of paying less for movie tickets, by people who are not actually senior citizens but claim to be, Cohen objects and calls it unethical. In the case of paying less for better baseball game tickets, that is paying for cheap seats and then sneaking down to the good seats, Cohen approves whole-heartedly, envoking "tradition". To those disagreed and asked "what if everyone did it?", he responds by saying this question is not helpful because "everyone will not do it" Yet in another case about stealing cable, Cohen himself uses the "what if everyone did it?" argument: "if everyone stole cable the company would go under, hence your obligation to pay".
But he forgot his own words; "everyone will not do it". If an ethicist expects people to respect their ethics, they should at the very minimum be objective and remain consistent.
Rating:
Summary: Dangerous, inconsistent, smug; worse than useless
Review: First, every well-educated person should have at least one good ethics book in their personal library. Second, this book ain't it. The author gives a series of case studies and then shows how he would solve the ethical problems he presents. The case studies unfold without much framework or alternative. Although any book of this volume has some good points, The Main Point I seem to infer from this book is that ethics is sort of like quantum physics or neurosurgery -- people can be shown how problems are solved by experts, but they should not be expected to do it themselves unless they are especially gifted and specially trained. I consider this conclusion not only wrong, but also potentially dangerous and inconsistent with a liberal democracy. Cohen's approach appears to be a type of "virtue ethics," which essentially argues that ethics depends on situational training and character rather than consequences or universal principles. Virtue ethics can often be amazingly wonderful and admirable, but usually not when standing alone in a diverse democracy. This view seems compatible with a democracy if and only if the population has been highly educated to develop, respect, and maintain such character, if the benefits of diversity can be maintained, and if the definition of character is universally accepted. Failing this, virtue ethicists seem to effectively turn to experts who will decide what is right and wrong for all (and, I assume, these "philosopher kings" in our country would be lawyers or professional ethicists). Bless their hearts, we need lawyers and professional ethicists, but citizens should watch and restrict them v-e-r-r-y carefully. We've already conceded justice in this country to the lawyers, with disastrous consequences for justice, and heaven help us if we should do the same with ethics and morals. Another quarrel I have with this book is the same quarrel I have with Mr. Cohen's New York Times articles -- the author's views are often inconsistent and downright wrong. One case in point is his view on those college honor codes which require students to turn in known and verified cheaters. Cohen feels this is "tattling," which can be effectively ignored by an ethically superior person. Well, let me tell you something -- if I know someone is falsifying aircraft maintenance records, and do not "tattle," I would rightly be considered an accessory to a crime, and might be partially responsible for killing hundreds of people if their planes crash because of faulty repairs. Cohen never draws a line between minor "tattling" and a crime of collaboration, and he never indicates how he would advise drawing that line. If, then, a person does not develop a respect for honesty in a training situation like college, just where are they going to develop it? College honor codes can help develop the kind of character that Cohen's "virtue ethics" requires, and can do so without much formal training in ethics. Anyway, this is just a case in point. Last and least, the author's writing style often seems insufferably smug and smarmy. Yecch. Poor writing is not necessary for good ethics. Alternatives include Arthur Dobrin's "Ethics for Everybody," anything by WIlliam Bennett, or ... almost any other good book. I mean, I appreciate his efforts but ... I hope that professional ethicists won't do to ethics what lawyers have done to justice, but after reading this book, I'm less hopeful.
Rating:
Summary: Dangerous, questionable, smarmy; worse than useless
Review: First, every well-educated person's library should have at least one good ethics book. Second, this book ain't it. The author gives a series of case studies and then shows how he would quickly solve the complicated ethics problems he sometimes presents. The main point I seem to infer from this book is that ethics is sort of like quantum physics or neurosurgery -- people can be shown how problems are solved by the experts, but they should not expect to be able to do it themselves -- in other words, ethics is too complicated to be left to ordinary individuals. I consider this conclusion not only wrong, but also potentially dangerous and inconsistent with liberal democracy. Cohen's approach seems to be a type of "virtue ethics," which essentially argues that ethics depends on a well-refined character rather than consequences or universal principles. Virtue ethics can be truly wonderful and essential, but usually not when standing alone in a diverse democracy and usually not when advocted by someone without superb credentials. This view is compatible with a democracy if and only if the definition of character is universally accepted, and the population has been highly educated to develop, respect, refine, and maintain such character. Failing this, such an approach effectively relies on "philosopher kings," who will decide what is right and wrong for all (and, I assume, these "philosopher kings" will be either lawyers or professional ethicists). We've already conceded justice in this country to lawyers, with disastrous consequences for justice, and heaven help us if we should do the same with morality and ethics. Bless their hearts, we need lawyers and ethicists, but they should be watched v-e-r-r-y carefully. Another quarrel I have with this book is the same quarrel I have with Mr. Cohen's New York Times articles -- the author's views are often inconsistent and downright wrong. One case in point is his view on those college honor codes which require students to turn in known and verified cheaters. Mr Cohen feels this is "tattling," which can be effectively ignored by an ethical person, even if this means cheaters can continue to take advantage of the system. Well, let me tell you something -- if I know of someone who is falsifying aircraft maintenance records, and do not "tattle," I could rightly be considered an accessory to a crime, and could be partially liable for killing hundreds of people if their planes crash because of faulty repairs. Mr Cohen never draws a line between minor "tattling" and a crime of collaboration, and he never indicates how (or if) he would draw that line. If a person does not develop a respect for honesty in a training situation like college, just where are they going to develop it? College honor codes can help institute the kind of character that Mr Cohen's "virtue ethics" requires, and can do so without much formal training in ethics. This is just one case in point. Last and least, the author's writing style often seems insufferably smug and smarmy. Yecch. Poor writing is not necessary for good ethics. Alternatives include Arthur Dobrin's "Ethics for Everyone," or ... almost any other book. I hope that professional ethicists won't do to ethics what lawyers have done to justice, but after reading this book, I am far less hopeful.
Rating:
Summary: Ethics?...Where?
Review: Mr. Cohen is in dire need of the admittedly lax editorial standards of The New York Times. In this book, any and all causes that conflict with Mr. Cohen's leftist leanings are pronounced "unethical".
Would that politics be discounted, his book is mediocre at best. And then, only for the most discerning. It is an effort to wade through the muck.
Rating:
Summary: he should practice what he preaches
Review: Not worth the time to read. You'd be better off using the pages from Cohen's book as wallpaper in your daughter's dollhouse. This guy doesn't have an objective mode in his keyboard. Instead of having a Caps-Lock key, Cohen's keyboard has a Biased-Lock key; and he keeps his glued down and "On" with everything he writes. Cohen frequently makes inappropriate off-topic remarks to further his own political opinions. No wonder the New York Times has him on their staff ... he fits right in with the rest of those biased bastages. Having Randy Cohen write about and espouse ethical wrongs and rights is like having Bill Clinton run a support group for sex addicts. And what do you bet Cohen's book has no problem ascending the New York Times Best Seller book list ... DUH, he works for them!
Rating:
Summary: New York Times & Ethicist ... Now THAT'S an OXYMORON!
Review: Not worth the time to read. You'd be better off using the pages from Cohen's book as wallpaper in your daughter's dollhouse. This guy doesn't have an objective mode in his keyboard. Instead of having a Caps-Lock key, Cohen's keyboard has a Biased-Lock key; and he keeps his glued down and "On" with everything he writes. Cohen frequently makes inappropriate off-topic remarks to further his own political opinions. No wonder the New York Times has him on their staff ... he fits right in with the rest of those biased bastages. Having Randy Cohen write about and espouse ethical wrongs and rights is like having Bill Clinton run a support group for sex addicts. And what do you bet Cohen's book has no problem ascending the New York Times Best Seller book list ... DUH, he works for them!
| 
