The most recommended ethics books

My introduction to Richard Alexander was a set of compelling words that he wrote in the margin of a draft of one of my early papers on the evolution of altruism: “no, no, no, no.” I had gotten it wrong. 

In The Biology of Moral Systems, Richard Alexander presents an account of how morality evolved in the human species that has proven almost exactly right. The key to understanding morality, he argues, is to view it as a system that evolved to enable individuals who can benefit from cooperating with one another to resolve their conflicts of interest in mutually beneficial ways. 

Alexander explains how the moral systems that have evolved in human societies are structured in ways that enable people to reap the benefits of increasingly indirect systems of reciprocity.  

Somewhat paradoxically, this treatise against genetic enhancement starts with the case of a deaf couple who want to have a deaf child.

This is a case I often discuss in exploring the difference between disease, disability, and diversity. Following on from this case description, Sandel asks, “Is it wrong to make a child deaf by design?” And what if the desired trait was not deafness but height, athletic prowess, health, or intelligence, and the aim was to gain a competitive advantage?

Would your answer be the same? In the pages that follow, Sandel builds a case against “reengineering our nature” grounded in an ethic of giftedness (i.e., a reverence for life as a gift).

He eschews the drive to mastery and insists that “[t]o appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design, or products of our will, or instruments of our… show more.

Epictetus was a slave who won his freedom and started his own successful school of philosophy before retiring into obscurity. Among his many students was the historian Arrian, who wrote up his spoken lectures “word for word” as the Discourses. The Discourses are down to earth, succinct, and forthright, as, for example, when Epictetus says, “And who exactly are these people that you want to be admired by? Aren’t they the same people you are in the habit of calling crazy? And is this your life ambition then—to win the approval of lunatics?” The Discourses were much loved by Marcus Aurelius, a case of a slave inspiring an emperor!

I know and admire Paul Woodruff, a noted philosopher at the University of Texas. His worldview has been shaped by his experiences as a young soldier in the Vietnam War and he has spent much of his professional life trying to make sense of those experiences.

The book begins with Woodruff remembering a time, 50 years ago, when he was lying in ambush in Vietnam, pondering the question that he attempts to answer in this book: “What makes the difference in a human being between acting ethically and not? Specifically, in a soldier, between committing atrocities and holding back?” He realized at that moment that all his philosophy training at Princeton had not helped him answer that question.

Much of his discussion in this book, written half a century later, finds useful guidance by focusing on the psychological influences of behavioral ethics rather than the philosophical musings of Socrates.

This book is now 50 years old, but its message is as relevant and important now as when it was written. In a series of witty essays that border on rants, Andreski attacks much of social science as fluff obscured by technical jargon and methodology. In particular, he laments the growth of quantitative methods as an attempt to add objectivity to social science and make it appear “harder.” True objectivity is about more than mechanical number-crunching, he says; it’s about a commitment to fairness and resisting the temptations of wishful thinking – a challenge anyone who works with data concerning people and their lives should take seriously.

The philosopher who invented deconstruction sets out—in a philosophical tour de force—to dismantle the grounds on which Western philosophy (and the Abrahamic religions) attempt to maintain the absolute difference in kind between the human and the animal.

Derrida’s point, I want to emphasize, is not that humans and animals are “the same,” but rather that the distinction between “the human” and “the animal” is of no use in trying to understand the wild diversity of life forms on earth and the ways in which they are entwined. At stake here too is our (often disavowed) relationship to our own animality.

An academic and scholarly read? Yes. But one that also takes very seriously what Derrida sometimes calls the animal “genocide” currently taking place underneath “normal” everyday life in developments such as mass extinction and factory farming.

Edmund (Ed) D. Pellegrino was a man of many qualities and achievements.

He was one of the forefathers of medical ethics. He was a learned Catholic. He was hailed as a “complete physician” among “a handful of other high-profile physician leaders of the twentieth century.

In a long and remarkable career that spanned over 55 years of research and scholarship, Pellegrino published more than 550 scholarly books and articles.

In For the Patient's Good, the authors discuss the notion of beneficence as a guiding principle in medical ethics. They examine the content of the concept of 'patient good' from ethical, philosophical, and practical aspects, speaking about the duties of the medical professionals to their patients.

Ed and I used to meet during my visits to Washington. We had lengthy conversations about medical ethics, philosophy, religion (Catholicism, Judaism), and education.

He was the keynote speaker in one of the conferences I… show more.

Michael Schur is not a philosopher—he’s a comedian and the creator of the hit TV show The Good Place. Thus, since I am a professional philosopher, perhaps I’m supposed to be snide about the fact that Schur wrote a philosophy book. But I’m not. I really love the book, and I’ve recommended it to many friends who want a light and airy introduction to philosophy.

It’s funny and irreverent and does an impressive amount of really good philosophy. I laughed out loud while reading it, and even though I teach a lot of the fairly introductory material that Schur covers, I learned a lot just due to the breadth of what he discusses in this wide-ranging book. I came away thinking that perhaps more comedians should do philosophy!

I often joke that Marcus Aurelius is my brother from another mother. Sure, he was a Roman emperor who, if he’d lived, would be 1,900 years old this year, but the things he wrote in Meditations — his book on Stoic philosophy written for himself between 170 and 180 CE — are perfectly on point. I feel like he’s writing from inside my head, struggling with the same challenges I do. Of course, Aurelius is not so much like me as much as he’s like every human on the planet; he just happened to think and express himself in a direct, accessible way. His “epithets” – guiding principles for how he lived his life – inspired me to come up with my own epithets. Maybe they’ll do the same for you.

This book was the perfect balance of new versus old in how it wove in the original Uglies series (which I very much appreciated) but still provided a compelling new story backdrop. My heart broke for Frey as she uncovered the lies she’d been led to believe, but in an “I need to keep reading” kind of way.

And this book keeps you reading. I utterly devoured it, eager to know what would happen next because it was so twisty and turny.