Emmett Barcalow

Students new to Philosophy and to Ethics could use a good model for reasoning. In an age in which the idea of “debate” has devolved into split-screen, partisan spin-wrangling, new scholars can be at a disadvantage. In the realm of ethics, introductory books of the caliber one can find in general introductions to philosophy—eg., Elliott Sober’s Core Questions in Philosophy—are sorely scarce.

Perhaps the main advantage of Moral Philosophy, then, is that Emmett Barcalow provides quite a good model of philosophical reasoning. In most chapters, Barcalow takes students on a logical walk through the issues. Though Barcalow’s own inclinations are discernable, the goal of the textbook is clearly to get students accustomed to asking themselves the question: “What if I thought about this from another angle?” The tendency to ask such questions is a philosophical skill, and finding a textbook that can get that skill downloaded into students’ minds is rare.

One of the ways Barcalow accomplishes this task, is to diligently ask students to consider each issue through the lens of moral theories they learn about at the beginning of the book. Any given moral issue chapter finds Barcalow laying out some of the major questions and concepts important for understanding why the issue is controversial. Closer to the end of the chapter, the author then asks what particular moral theories might say about the issue.

Barcalow does not always hit the mark when applying theory to issue—eg., would most pornography models really agree that the Kantian view is that they are merely being used in a sense that is relevantly different from other jobs (eg. cashiering?) However, the consistent use of this approach in the chapters provides an excellent teaching tool and serves as a platform for discussion.

Partially reflecting the technique used in the chapters is the overall structure of the book. The first seven chapters lay out a landscape of ethical theories and considerations. Utilitarianism, Religion, and Egoism, for example, each receive their own chapters. The second half of the book is devoted to moral issues to which the theories apply, for example, feminism, crime and punishment, racism, and war.

In the theoretical chapters, Barcalow does an excellent job of both introducing the perspectives and ideas that motivate the theories; but he also takes them to task. Once again, he exemplifies the approach of thinking critically while developing understanding. There are, however, two awkward aspects about the way Barcalow incorporates theory into the book.

First, in the issue chapters, Barcalow usually only applies three of the moral theories discussed in the first half of the book: Utilitarian, Kantian, and Virtue Ethics. Clearly, these theories are some of the most talked about in contemporary ethics, but they are not the only ones. In fact, Barcalow’s choice not to include the Libertarian, autonomy-based outlook as one of the main contenders smacks of omission. Further, in a pedagogical sense, students may get the impression that “all that theory stuff” discussed at the beginning is not relevant to sorting through moral issues, since not much of it plays a part later in the book. Since they are left out of other chapters, lessons supposedly learned early on in a semester (like what is wrong with relativism) can sometimes be forgotten by the time a student confronts a moral issue where s/he might apply those lessons.

A second problem with the structure of the book is that despite a promising start, there is very little use of the technique of evaluating arguments in the book. The first thirty pages include ample detail about the standard philosophical tools of arguments, premises, validity, and all that. It is somewhat surprising, then, that these structuring techniques are scarcely employed throughout the rest of the book. Practically no position in the issues chapters is ever presented in premise-conclusion form. Those issues do receive critical analysis, as explained above. However, the book would have been better if Barcalow had treated at least some of those issues by honing-in on problem premises in actual arguments. Otherwise, I fear, students come away with a less precise sense of particular issue positions.

“Limitations of space” is not an adequate excuse for perpetuating these omissions in future editions. Indeed, in a couple of the issues chapters, Barcalow sometimes appears to be filling space instead of confronting the philosophical issues. Why, for example, do we need six pages essentially describing the history of feminism, rather than more substantial discussion of its deeper issues? Why a four-page verbatim presentation of the U.N.’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights?” There is ample room, here, to focus more on reasoning than on inessential facts.

Those considering using this book as a textbook, however, would do well to realize that these drawbacks of the text are easily offset by perspicuous course organization. A lecturer could provide the missing arguments in class. Class assignments and tests can make up for the missing applications of theory to issue. Moral Philosophy is good enough so that an instructor’s attempts at compensating for the text are at least not hobbled by a lack of clarity or organization in the text.… (mais)