Customer Rating: 
Summary: Rachels is Disappointing
Comment: It was a very disappointing experience having to read this book for my MBA program. Since I did not read the original edition of James Rachels it is unclear whether his son Stuart committed this atrocity on his own or not. If you are a teacher, do not choose this book for your class as it is a complete waste of time and contains no concrete thoughts or any type of useful philosophy principles for discussion, much less use in our lives. If you are looking for a philosophical read on your own, keep looking. This book mostly ridicules instead of examines and is very difficult to understand Rachels real perspective, if there is one.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Rachels on Moral Relativism
Comment: Just one gripe with an otherwise sound introduction;
I think that the section on moral relativism is especially weak. Rachels offers two arguments against the Cultural Differences Argument:
p1 Different cultures have different moral codes
p2 This would only happen were there a single, universal morality
conclusion: no such universal morality exists
Rachels first argues that the argument is invalid, using the analogy of 'theories of the shape of the earth.' Just as different cultural beliefs about the shape of the earth do not show that the Earth has no definite shape, Rachels argues, different moral beliefs across cultures and times do not show that there is no universal morality. I suspect that this is question- begging. Rachels presupposes that truths about the shape of the Earth are relevantly similar to 'truths' about moral universals, but this requires that there are such moral universals. (Different cultures have different theories about tastiness, or feminine beauty; it seems to me straightforwardly true that this shows that such beliefs or theories are really culturally bound).
Rachels then goes on to argue that premise one is not true, or is exagerrated. His view that no culture could survive without a ban on homicide, infanticide or theft is simply naive, (consider in- group vs. out- group relations, or the history of slavery, for obvious examples) as is his view that all apparent differences in morality are due to economic, environmental or worldview-based factors. A competent stage I student would be able to take him apart.
Actually I prefer this chapter as it is: it gives the instructor a good opportunity to set students loose on an argument for criticism, and to unlearn automatic respect for textual authority.
G. Roche Lakeland College Wisconsin
Customer Rating:
Summary: Nauseating
Comment: I was required to read this for my high school senior Philosophy class, and it is nauseating. Rachels hides behind the ostensibly noble endeavor of writing a book about moral philosophy, and uses it to defend homosexuality, abortion, and disregard for The Bible. He might as well title the book "My Arguments Against Christianity," for that is really what it is. His skepticism when it comes to Christian faith and The Bible are only proofs that he is one of today's "enlightened" philosophers who is too "intelligent" to fall for the ridiculously simplistic beliefs of Christianity.
This book is a terrible anti-Christian screed, a total waste of time, and a sorry attempt at philosophy.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Mediocre introduction with a lot of mistakes in arguments...
Comment: If you have a choice between this and Pojman, get Pojman. I don't particularly like either of them, but Pojmans "Ethics" is definately the better one.
BAD: The chapter on subjectivism is completely confused - this book has no proper introduction to meta-ethics nor is its place in general ethics explained. The chapter on relativism is ok, but I would say that there are serious mistakes there too. The chapters about utilitarianism are just too simplistic and exclusive.
GOOD: The chapterson the social contract and the chapter on Kant are both good, as is the chapter on feminist ethics. It is good to see that stuff usually left out (social contract, feminist ethics) is included here.
Overall you should get something else for a good introduction to the subject and if you already have some knowledge of the field, this book will be of no interest whatsoever.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Despite it being popular, I cannot recommend this book
Comment: I teach college-level ethics and decided to give the Rachels text a try for one of my courses this semester. It being probably the most popular ethics text, I thought it surely would be at least adequate. It is not.
Pros: Rachels' section on cultural relativism is probably the best discussion of the topic in print. Use it as a pivotal reference. His sections on "Absolute Moral Rules" and "Kant and Respect for Persons" are solid, and his section "The Idea of Social Contract" is a decent discussion of an oft-slighted moral theory. He also includes a not-too-shabby discussion of feminist ethics.
Cons: I must list these.
1) Rachels' section on utilitarianism is extremely poor, hardly mentioning the very important distinction between Bentham and Mill over the object of utility or Bentham's "Calculus of Felicity" which is an extremely important utilitarian first-step.
2) In the section on utilitarianism and in a few other places (inexplicably), Rachels forgoes an adequate explanation of the theory at hand, instead choosing to discuss it in the context of an applied problem like euthanasia or homosexuality. In doing so, he tries to accomplish far too much in far to short a time without a foundation.
3) His section "Subjectivism in Ethics" is hopelessly muddled between the view that morality is up to individual tastes or doesn't exists at all, and proper metaethical concerns about the meaning of moral statements (propositions or expressions of emotion?). The two are actually separate matters, and regardless they cannot both be adequately covered in 16 4"x8" pages. Better to leave out some material than cover it badly.
4) The book is too expensive. $32 for a text that is the length of a short paperback novel is obscene. Of course, this is a systemic problem with academic texts, but I have to say something.
I would recommend Pojmans "Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong" or Timmons "Conduct and Character" over this text. The Pojman text is a little slanted to the conservative right, but that can actually work well in that it can create positive tension upon which to discuss the core issues. And Pojman covers every base (and then some). Timmons has collected top-notch accessible primary source readings on moral theory, and so is another wise choice.
Summary: Rachels is Disappointing
Comment: It was a very disappointing experience having to read this book for my MBA program. Since I did not read the original edition of James Rachels it is unclear whether his son Stuart committed this atrocity on his own or not. If you are a teacher, do not choose this book for your class as it is a complete waste of time and contains no concrete thoughts or any type of useful philosophy principles for discussion, much less use in our lives. If you are looking for a philosophical read on your own, keep looking. This book mostly ridicules instead of examines and is very difficult to understand Rachels real perspective, if there is one.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Rachels on Moral Relativism
Comment: Just one gripe with an otherwise sound introduction;
I think that the section on moral relativism is especially weak. Rachels offers two arguments against the Cultural Differences Argument:
p1 Different cultures have different moral codes
p2 This would only happen were there a single, universal morality
conclusion: no such universal morality exists
Rachels first argues that the argument is invalid, using the analogy of 'theories of the shape of the earth.' Just as different cultural beliefs about the shape of the earth do not show that the Earth has no definite shape, Rachels argues, different moral beliefs across cultures and times do not show that there is no universal morality. I suspect that this is question- begging. Rachels presupposes that truths about the shape of the Earth are relevantly similar to 'truths' about moral universals, but this requires that there are such moral universals. (Different cultures have different theories about tastiness, or feminine beauty; it seems to me straightforwardly true that this shows that such beliefs or theories are really culturally bound).
Rachels then goes on to argue that premise one is not true, or is exagerrated. His view that no culture could survive without a ban on homicide, infanticide or theft is simply naive, (consider in- group vs. out- group relations, or the history of slavery, for obvious examples) as is his view that all apparent differences in morality are due to economic, environmental or worldview-based factors. A competent stage I student would be able to take him apart.
Actually I prefer this chapter as it is: it gives the instructor a good opportunity to set students loose on an argument for criticism, and to unlearn automatic respect for textual authority.
G. Roche Lakeland College Wisconsin
Customer Rating:
Summary: Nauseating
Comment: I was required to read this for my high school senior Philosophy class, and it is nauseating. Rachels hides behind the ostensibly noble endeavor of writing a book about moral philosophy, and uses it to defend homosexuality, abortion, and disregard for The Bible. He might as well title the book "My Arguments Against Christianity," for that is really what it is. His skepticism when it comes to Christian faith and The Bible are only proofs that he is one of today's "enlightened" philosophers who is too "intelligent" to fall for the ridiculously simplistic beliefs of Christianity.
This book is a terrible anti-Christian screed, a total waste of time, and a sorry attempt at philosophy.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Mediocre introduction with a lot of mistakes in arguments...
Comment: If you have a choice between this and Pojman, get Pojman. I don't particularly like either of them, but Pojmans "Ethics" is definately the better one.
BAD: The chapter on subjectivism is completely confused - this book has no proper introduction to meta-ethics nor is its place in general ethics explained. The chapter on relativism is ok, but I would say that there are serious mistakes there too. The chapters about utilitarianism are just too simplistic and exclusive.
GOOD: The chapterson the social contract and the chapter on Kant are both good, as is the chapter on feminist ethics. It is good to see that stuff usually left out (social contract, feminist ethics) is included here.
Overall you should get something else for a good introduction to the subject and if you already have some knowledge of the field, this book will be of no interest whatsoever.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Despite it being popular, I cannot recommend this book
Comment: I teach college-level ethics and decided to give the Rachels text a try for one of my courses this semester. It being probably the most popular ethics text, I thought it surely would be at least adequate. It is not.
Pros: Rachels' section on cultural relativism is probably the best discussion of the topic in print. Use it as a pivotal reference. His sections on "Absolute Moral Rules" and "Kant and Respect for Persons" are solid, and his section "The Idea of Social Contract" is a decent discussion of an oft-slighted moral theory. He also includes a not-too-shabby discussion of feminist ethics.
Cons: I must list these.
1) Rachels' section on utilitarianism is extremely poor, hardly mentioning the very important distinction between Bentham and Mill over the object of utility or Bentham's "Calculus of Felicity" which is an extremely important utilitarian first-step.
2) In the section on utilitarianism and in a few other places (inexplicably), Rachels forgoes an adequate explanation of the theory at hand, instead choosing to discuss it in the context of an applied problem like euthanasia or homosexuality. In doing so, he tries to accomplish far too much in far to short a time without a foundation.
3) His section "Subjectivism in Ethics" is hopelessly muddled between the view that morality is up to individual tastes or doesn't exists at all, and proper metaethical concerns about the meaning of moral statements (propositions or expressions of emotion?). The two are actually separate matters, and regardless they cannot both be adequately covered in 16 4"x8" pages. Better to leave out some material than cover it badly.
4) The book is too expensive. $32 for a text that is the length of a short paperback novel is obscene. Of course, this is a systemic problem with academic texts, but I have to say something.
I would recommend Pojmans "Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong" or Timmons "Conduct and Character" over this text. The Pojman text is a little slanted to the conservative right, but that can actually work well in that it can create positive tension upon which to discuss the core issues. And Pojman covers every base (and then some). Timmons has collected top-notch accessible primary source readings on moral theory, and so is another wise choice.