The Elements of Moral Philosophy

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.


A truly frustrating book   January 19, 2006
S. Green
12 out of 18 found this review helpful

This text, in my estimation, is a very poor choice for a college level introductory course on ethics, which, I am told, is sadly the purpose for which it is most read.

The first chapter attempts to introduce the reader to the notion of morality by examining three difficult moral questions, and the arguments presented by each side. He goes further than this, however, by simply informing the reader, in inimitably straightforward prose, which side's argument has more merit. He proceeds, throughout the book, to make additional pronouncements. Of cultural relativism, it takes only 13 pages for him to explain the concept, present arguments against it, and declare triumphantly, "This all adds up to a pretty thorough repudiation of the theory." In other words, this and several other chapters amount to nothing more than persuasive texts arguing against the notion being discussed.

I have nothing against philosophers stridently stating their views; that's the entire point of philosophy. It is simply not suitable, however, for an informative work intended as an introduction to ethics. No writer is capable of fully and accurately explaining the intricate and nuanced positions of a branch of philosophical thought in 13 pages of text, let alone do justice to the critiques thereof. Rachels, by refusing throughout this book to adopt a neutral point of view, has produced a text bereft of value.