Books of Knowledge

David Robert says:

James Rachels is not only biased but shows himself to be intellectually dishonest in his book, “The Elements of Moral Philosophy”. For a man who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, the sloppiness of his premise justifying abortion is inexcusable. You had better know how to wear a good pair of discerning hip waders while wading through his pap or you’re going to get tainted with the stuff Rachels is piled higher and deeper in. Specious sophism not sound philosophy.

In chapter 3 Rachels uses homosexuality to illustrate subjectivism in ethics. Jerry Falwell is Rachels main antagonist against homosexuality. Rachels states that, “when someone such as Falwell says that homosexuality is wrong, he is not stating a fact about homosexuality. Instead, he is merely saying something about his feelings toward it.” Rachels carries on ad nauseam with subtle ridicule of Falwell’s position against homosexuality finally stating, “Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell’s point of view, but I do not know what they could be.” How convenient and intellectually dishonest of Rachels to ignore the fact that Falwell obviously reads the Bible, which states “…and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”1 Timothy 1:10,11

So, is Rachels ignorant of the existence of scripture when he stated, “Perhaps there are other arguments in support of Falwell’s point of view, but I do not know what they could be.” Chapter 4, “Does Morality Depend on Religion?”, shows that Rachels is not ignorant of scripture when he justifies abortion with Exodus 21:22. pg 67 “The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific judgment about the moral status of fetuses occurs in the 21st chapter of Exodus. … Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid to her husband. Murder was not a category that included fetuses. The Law of Israel apparently regarded fetuses as something less than full human beings.”

Rachels might have a PH.D, but he is no Hebrew scholar. The mistranslation of “yatsa” as miscarriage in the NAS version implies the death of the fetus, but it still takes conjecture and speculation on Rachels part to conclude that the baby definitely died upon leaving the mother early. With easy access to other biblical translations and the Internet (just type Exodus 21:22 in a search engine like GOOGLE) there is no excuse for Dr. Rachels shoddy academic discourse on such a salient issue in today’s society.
Rating: 1 / 5

Anonymous says:

Having just completed another semester at UAB in which this book was mandatory for a class, I thought it might be appropriate to make a few comments concerning it. To my knowledge, James Rachels’ Elements of Moral Philosophy has been a best-selling introductory textbook to moral philosophy. Formally I can see why: it is a short, succint book from a literate philosopher that covers several of the most prominent moral attitudes in contemporary philosophy. Because it is an introductory text, it rarely goes into too much detail.

I say that as a general rule. It is telling, however, that some of Rachels’ greatest profusion comes in Chapter Four, titled something like, “Is Morality Dependent on Religion?” In keeping with the tenor of the entire work, Rachels’ answer to this is a resounding, frustrated, “No!” What does he substitute instead? “Reason!”

The only problem here, Dr. Rachels (who is recently deceased, and if the UAB philosophy brass ever sees the post I will not stay on their favorite students list), is that your basis for morality is a reification (i.e., a regarding of something that is non-substantive or that is a process as an actually existing thing; to use Bahnsen’s example, “the winds of change” or “the federal government”)!

“Reason” is an abstraction we use to refer to the process of reasoning, in which we take certain propositions and combine them with other propositions to reach conclusions (loosely put, of course). Rachels does not even mention this; and it ends up stultifying every single one of the arguments in his book. It must be noted that he cannot admit a correlation between metaphysics and reason (or logic) because then he would not be able to assure his self-projection as an autonomous and capable knower a stable throne in the realm of moral epistemology.

That said, the book isn’t even thoughtful. And I’m being charitable here. Rachels employs the most puerile objections and arguments imaginable (and some that defy the faculty of the imagination) in almost every chapter of his book. The popularity of this work simply confirms to me that, as Paul tells us in Romans chapter one, not only do men practice their benighted works (including intellectual works like this one), but they also “heartily approve” of those that do likewise.

The two stars I gave it is common grace, pure and simple.
Rating: 2 / 5

Dianelos Georgoudis says:

This is a lucid book, written in plain language, and with lots of examples that show why and how ethical ideas are relevant. Many of these examples are taken from contemporary ethical questions, not all of them resolved, such as racism, female circumcision, abortion, animal rights, the reason for law, the deterrence of criminals, homosexuality, and more. Often complex arguments are distilled and clarified in short syllogisms. Argument in pro and in contra of the different theories are given dispassionately and in way that I found very interesting and thought provoking. For example after explaining one of the most important theories, utilitarianism, arguments are given that attack it, then arguments that defend it against those attacks, arguments against the defense, and so on. In each round of discussion the theory becomes richer and we feel we get a better understanding of it.

Even though I greatly enjoyed reading this book, I was also very disappointed in that it did not go far enough or deep enough. The book completely overlooks ethics born from religion even though what little moral teaching reaches most people comes from religion. Religious ethical precepts are a real force today both for good and evil, even in the most secular societies. I would love to have Rachels analyze and compare religious theories as he did with the philosophical theories. This omission is quite conscious, and the reason given is flimsy: the divine command theory is roundly rejected because God commands what is right, not something is right because God commands it, and therefore we need discuss only what is right without worrying what the great religious traditions have to say about ethics. To a religious person this argument is absurd: not only the ethical commands but also our sense and reason about ethics is created by God. So the author ignores many wonderful ethical ideas that deserve discussion and becomes color blind to a large chunk of ethical thought… These omissions loom so large, precisely because this is such an important subject matter. Only three stars then, because this well written book could be so much more.
Rating: 3 / 5