You Decide!: Current Debates in Ethics / Edition 1

Paperback (Print)
Buy Used
Buy Used from
(Save 40%)
Item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging.
Condition: Used – Good details
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $1.99
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 96%)
Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (22) from $1.99   
  • New (4) from $47.07   
  • Used (18) from $1.99   


Covering important philosophical issues aimed at today's students, paired articles "talk to each other," thus setting up a clear "pro-con" format. Each pair of readings features an introduction with a list of "Points to Ponder" which focuses students on the issues they’ll encounter as they read and ends with a conclusion entitled "The Continuing Debate" with subheads "What is New” and "Where to Find More" to encourage further study and discussion.

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780321354471
  • Publisher: Pearson
  • Publication date: 12/29/2005
  • Edition description: New Edition
  • Edition number: 1
  • Pages: 352
  • Product dimensions: 6.29 (w) x 8.97 (h) x 0.78 (d)

Table of Contents

Debate 1: Ethics and Religion: Does Religion Undercut Ethics or Provide Vital Support for Ethics?

Religion Undercuts Ethics.

Advocate: James Rachels. Source: “God and Human Experience.”

Religion Provides Vital Support for Ethics.

Advocate: George N. Schlesinger.

Source: New Perspectives on Old-Time Religion.

Debate 2: Reason, Objectivity, and Ethics: Can Reason Guide Us to Objective Ethical Truths?

Reason Cannot Discover Ethical Truths.

Advocate: Bernard Williams.

Source: Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy.

Reason Can Discover Ethical Truths.

Advocate: Thomas Nagel.

Source: The Last Word.

Debate 3: Is Ethics Based on a Social Contract?

Social Contract Theory Offers the Best Grounds for Ethics.

Advocate: David Gauthier.

Source: “Why Contractarianism?”

Social Contract Theory is an Inadequate Account of Ethics.

Advocate: Jean Hampton.

Source: “Two Faces of Contractarian Thought.”

Debate 4: Can Consequentialism Make Room for Friendship?

Consequentialism Can Accommodate the Value of Friendship.

Advocate: Peter Railton.

Source: “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.”

Consequentialism Leaves No Room for Friendship.

Advocate: Michael Stocker.

Source: “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories.”

Debate 5: Morality: Universal Principles of Justice or Specific Caring Relationships?

Caring Relationships Can Take Precedence.

Advocate: Virginia Held.

Source: “Caring Relations and Principles of Justice.”

Justice and Care Operate Together.

Advocate: Claudia Card.

Source: “Particular Justice and General Care.”

Debate 6: Do Moral Obligations Always Take Precedence?

We Should Limit the Demands of Morality.

Advocate: Susan Wolf.

Source: “Moral Saints.”

Following the Strongest Demands of Morality is a Worthwhile Goal.

Advocate: Robert Merrihew Adams.

Source: “Saints.”

Debate 7: Do Women Have a Distinctive Ethical Perspective?

Women Have a Distinctive Ethical Perspective.

Advocate: Annette Baier.

Source: “What Do Women Want in a Moral Theory?”

Gender Does not Distinguish Different Moral Perspectives.

Advocate: Marilyn Friedman.

Source: “Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender.”

Debate 8: Can Virtue Theory Offer Moral Direction?

Virtue Ethics Offers Effective Moral Guidance.

Advocate: Rosalind Hursthouse.

Source: On Virtue Ethics.

Virtue Ethics Leaves Loose Ends.

Advocates: David Copp and David Sobel.

Source: “Morality and Virtue: An Assessment of Some Recent Work in Virtue Ethics.”

Debate 9: Does Contemporary Psychological Research Threaten Virtue Theory?

Virtue Theory is Undercut by Contemporary Psychological Research.

Advocate: Gilbert Harman.

Source: “Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error.”

Virtue Theory is not Damaged by Contemporary Psychological Research.

Advocate: James Montmarquet.

Source: “Moral Character and Social Science Research.”

Debate 10: Is Moral Psychology Relevant to Moral Philosophy?

Moral Psychology Requires Changes in Moral Philosophy.

Advocate: Mark L. Johnson.

Source: “How Moral Psychology Changes Moral Theory.”

Moral Psychology Has Little Effect on Moral Philosophy.

Advocate: Virginia Held.

Source: “Whose Agenda? Ethics Versus Cognitive Science.”

Debate 11: How Did Moral Behavior Develop?

Morality Developed as a Means of Controlling Powerful Group Members.

Advocate: Christopher Boehm.

Source: “Conflict and the Evolution of Social Control.”

Morality Developed to Protect Systems of Cooperative Exchange.

Advocate: Dennis Krebs.

Source: “As Moral as We Need to Be.”

Debate 12: Pragmatism and the Dispute Over Value Objectivity

There Are Truths About Values.

Advocate: Hilary Putnam.

Source: “Are Values Made or Discovered?”

There Are No Truths About Values.

Advocate: Richard Rorty.

Source: “Relativism: Finding and Making.”

Debate 13: Is Morality Relative to Culture or Objectively and Universally True?

Morality is Relative.

Advocate: Gilbert Harman.

Source: “Is There a Single True Morality?”

Morality is Objectively True.

Advocate: Carol Rovane.

Source: “Earning the Right to Realism or Relativism in Ethics.”

Debate 14: Is Cultural Relativism a Helpful Approach to Ethics?

Ethical Cultural Relativism Should be Rejected.

Advocate: Ruth Macklin.

Source: Against Relativism: Cultural Diversity and the Search for Ethical Universals in Medicine.

Ethical Cultural Relativism Has Some Advantages.

Advocate: Elvin Hatch.

Source: “The Good Side of Relativism.”

Debate 15: Is Morality an Ideological Illusion?

Close Examination of Morality Reveals its Ideological Nature.

Advocate: Anthony Skillen.

Source: “Is Morality a Ruling Illusion?”

The Objectivity of Morality Remains an Open Possibility.

Advocate: Peter Railton

Source: “Morality, Ideology, and Reflection; or, The Duck Sits Yet.”

Debate 16: Is Partiality Toward Fellow Citizens Morally Justified?

Partiality Toward Fellow Citizens Should be Very Limited.

Advocate: Jeff McMahan.

Source: “The Limits of National Partiality.”

Significant Partiality Toward Fellow Citizens is Justified.

Advocate: Thomas Hurka.

Source: “The Justification of National Partiality.”

Debate 17: Is Moral Responsibility Morally Justified?

Moral Responsibility is Morally Legitimate.

Advocate: Daniel C. Dennett.

Source: Freedom Evolves.

Moral Responsibility is Ultimately Unjustified.

Advocate: Saul Smilansky.

Source: “Compatibilism: The Argument from Shallowness."

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)