#4,078 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Fundamentals of Ethics
Sentiment score: 6
Reddit mentions: 9
We found 9 Reddit mentions of The Fundamentals of Ethics. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Oxford University Press USA
Features:
Specs:
Height | 5.4 Inches |
Length | 8.2 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.91271376468 Pounds |
Width | 0.6 Inches |
I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.
If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:
It depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want a clear, intro-level overview of the subject, check out Shafer-Landau's Fundamental's of Ethics. It's a fantastic place to start, and it is the book I recommend if you really want to understand the subject and plan to read outside the context of a class.
If you want primary texts, I suggest that you get the book's companion, The Ethical Life.
If you want a textbook that is a little shorter and more engaging, check out Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
If you want an introduction that's informative and fun to read but less informative than the Rachels or the Shafer-Landau, check out Sandel's Justice. You can also watch his Justice lectures online. This book, as opposed to the other two, is written for a popular audience.
At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.
At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.
Some good intro books:
Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau. Note it's a two volume edition in which one book is the theory with exercises and the other is an anthology of excerpts from ethical texts. https://www.amazon.ca/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
Hands down best intro to ethics I ever had.
Readings on Metaethics
Defenses of God/Christianity
Many of the people listed above have done interviews and talks if you're not inclined to read an entire book.
Let me know if this does/doesn't help or if I should narrow the list.
just teach them this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
I just finished reading this book.
And I'm 100 pages into this book.
The first says:
> Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason - to do what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Moral Philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. There is no simple definition of morality. But there is a “minimum conception” of morality - a core that any moral theory should accept. What do we know about the nature of Morality?
>1. Moral Judgments must be backed by good reasons.
>2. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests.
The second book compares morality to art. While all art is subjective, people still practice and study art and become knowledgeable. It would be foolish to think we couldn't learn something from those who devote much time and energy to the subject. In the same way, we can learn about morality.
I think that if the person reports it was her duty so save other soldiers, it's not really a classical case of altruism. So in that case I agree. But that's unique to the reported reason of someone handling out of "duty" rather than "empathy".
On an act being egoistic as soon as some pleasure is derived, allow me to quote these nicely written paragraphs from this book.
> The egoist might respond: if you are doing what you really want, aren’t
you thereby self-interested? It is important to see that the answer may well
be no. For all we know, some of us deeply want to help other people. When
we manage to offer such help, we are doing what we really want to do. Yet
what we really want to do is to benefit someone else, not ourselves.
Now, if people get what they really want, they may be better off as a
result. (But they might not: think of the anorexic or the drug addict. Or
think of the cases of disappointment discussed in chapter 4.) Yet the fact
that a person gains from her action does not prove that her motives were
egoistic [1]. The person who really wants to help the homeless, and volunteers
at a soup kitchen or shelter, may certainly derive pleasure from her efforts.
But this doesn’t show that pleasure was her aim. Her aim may have been to
help those in need. And because her aim was achieved, she thereby
received pleasure.
> As a general matter, when you discover that your deepest desires have
been satisfied, you often feel quite pleased. But that does not mean that your ultimate aim is to get such pleasure. That’s what needs to be shown; we can’t just assume it in trying to figure out whether our motives are
always self-interested.
I also think describing altruistic behavior as epigenetically, deterministically or evolutionarily is as useful as describing love as an influx of dopamine and oxytocine. It's scientifically nice but also kind of restricting in understanding humans.
[1] If I reward you with a cookie for taking the shortest path to work, and you enjoy that reward, that does not prove you took the shortest path to work because of my reward--you would have taken it anyway and under what I understand to be your conception of human behavior there is no accounting for this possibility.
Still looking for a PDF of https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0199997233 | ISBN-13: 978-0199997237
Paypal, $3.