Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

You Decide!: Current Debates in Ethics / Edition 1

You Decide!: Current Debates in Ethics / Edition 1

by Bruce N. Waller

ISBN-10: 0321354478

ISBN-13: 9780321354471

Pub. Date: 12/29/2005

Publisher: Pearson

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"


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.

Product Details

Publication date:
Edition description:
New Edition
Product dimensions:
6.40(w) x 9.10(h) x 0.70(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."

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews