Ethics Books

This review is based on a reading of only a small part of the book. However that sample provided me with a great deal of enthusiasm for reading the rest.
The subject of 'courage' is one of endless fascination. The definition of Courage as Miller makes clear at the outset of this work is by no means sure and easy. He opens the book by telling a story from the Civil War which he calls the 'Story of the Good Coward" This was a soldier who did all his duties well, volunteered often to help others. And whenever there was an engagement for battle , readied himself, prepared to go into the battle but somehow took fright and could not. What is surprising is that his fellow soldiers did not curse and banish him, but rather tried to support and encourage him. They seemed to understand that he simply did not have what it takes to face the battle.
Miller discusses 'courage' in relation to the overcoming of fear. He raises the question of whether 'courage' is fearlessness, or knowing how to live with and overcome one's fear. He discusses Courage in relation to a wide variety of psychological and moral questions. He uses too a wide variety of sources from battle memoirs to philosophical discussions of the subjects.
He points out that Courage too is in today's world often indicted. And this when his historical discussion notes how the Greeks considered Courage one of the major virtues. Miller considers historical efforts of Plato, Aristotle ,Aquinas ( patience and sufferance, as Christian courage) to define this quality.
This review is in part written because of the attention called to the book by the act of courage of Virginia Tech University Professor,Holocaust survivor, Liviu Librescu. When a deranged gunman came to shoot up the class he ran to the door, he held it closed while being shot, yelled to his students to escape from the windows. Certainly all would agree that the risking and giving of one's life in this way to save others is an act of courage.
The subject of Courage is a vast one. From what I have read Miller's treatment of the subject is an intelligent and informative one .

Once upon a time, there was such a thing as courage. It was at the center of all our stories. Now there are no more stories worth telling and all human beings are weak. At least we still have the stories and this book has some great ones, and true. For example, there's the one about the American GI on the Italian front who "charged" an enemy position on one knee and the stump of his other leg, shot off at the knee.

This is a scholarly work that gives real insight into the nature of courage. It's very well-written. The book draws on soldier's stories from ancient Greece to Vietnam and shows how the concerns about measuring up "when the chips are down" have not changed much despite the passage of thousands of years.

I had the privilege of studying the dynamics of the blood feud culture under Professor Miller. After the class I began reading some of his literature. Miller's historiography and use of primary sources is gripping, and his frank admiration and identification with honor cultures of the past is refreshing in this time of stifling political correctness.
Professor Miller has an extremely rare gift: He sees both himself and others as they really are. His self-examination is as important to his work as his historical analysis and philosophical musings. If you are honest with yourself you will recognize many aspects of your own psyche from Miller's writings.
"The Mystery of Courage" can tell you more about yourself than a thousand psychotherapists. This is a must read- you will never think of honor, bravery, fear, life or death the same way again.

This work is known to be a classic, and in my opinion, it is the best written last century. I even enjoyed R. Niebuhr better than Tillich and Barth. His erudition and conclusions are powerful and engaging. I recommend reading this for those familiar with political thought and philosophy of the modern era. By no means is this work parochial, it scope makes it a enthralling read even for those who find themselves outside to sprectrum of Christian belief.

Niebuhr has developed the most balanced statement of our character, identity, and core behavior motivations. He references all major worldviews from Eastern Naturalisms to Western Rationalism to Bibilical Revelation. The Bibilical Worldview provides the most balanced perspective of our human nature, which is offensive to the contrasting perspectives. In Volume 1, he identifies our form and our vitality as essential components of our nature. He also identifies that our desire for freedom, our ability to transend our natural state, and our self interest leads to "Man's Problem." Volume 2 focuses on worldviews that have messianic expectations and resolutions of history through corporate indentities. One can understand Niebuhr's perspecive on the eve of WWII's Fascist nations. In summary, this is absolutely one of the best works I have read to help clarify our human nature. His perspective is pragmatic, but is still very focued on core christian doctrines. Buy it, read it, wait a year, read it again, and ponder the depth and breath of his insights!

In the Nature and Destiny of Man, Reinhold Niebuhr, the influential "Christian realist" theologian, deals with big issues: the nature of man, history, and the end of the history. He offers deep - I would say profound - support for his views, but not proof. He offers one interpretation of the meaning of life's mysteries but not the only possible interpretation.

Niebuhr begins by arguing that the Christian view of man's nature, compared with alternative views, is more complete and offers more explanatory power. According to the Christian view, man is made in the image of God. Unlike alternative views that establish a good/bad duality between mind and body, in the Christian view, both mind and body are good because both are created by God. Man is made to live in harmony with others and God's will but violates this harmony when he - inevitably - makes himself the center and source of meaning for his life.

Man has tremendous creative and imaginative powers, and his mind can transcend both itself (since he can make his own thoughts the object of contemplation) and the natural world (since he can manipulate natural forces to create new possibilities and vitalities of nature). Because man cannot find ultimate meaning in what he can transcend, he cannot find ultimate meaning within himself or in the natural world. This is why we turn to religion.

Christianity is a religion of revelation, meaning that Christians believe that God must speak to us in order for us to arrive at a correct understanding of his nature and will. If the Bible is to be believed, God spoke to man throughout history but his message was not clearly understood. Because of our misunderstanding, and because God's law is so radically different from man's law, Jesus' message was highly offensive to his listeners. What Jesus told us is that God overcomes evil not by destroying evildoers but by taking their evil upon himself. God's love is suffering love.

To live in accordance with the law of love seems to require that we accept the reality of an existence beyond this life. If the reality of this other existence is denied, then Jesus' statement that "whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" makes no sense.

Yet, we are not to despise this life. To be righteous, to a Christian, means to serve others, and we need to strive after intermediate and partial arrangements that help point the way toward ultimate resolutions and revelations. God provides ultimate meaning. Just as the human mind can provide meaning to a sequence of chronological events by comprehending them all in an instant, so God provides meaning by comprehending all events both prospectively and retrospectively.

This poor summary of what Niebuhr has to say on the largest subjects makes it sound as if this is a very otherworldly book. It is not. The book contains a great deal of keen observation of human behavior and current events at the outset of World War II, and Niebuhr later became extremely influential in the U.S. State Department. Niebuhr's observations on politics and social justice still speak to us with great immediacy.

There has been no book written in the last 1900 years that better explains the human condition and the Christian response to it. Niebuhr draws from an extensive understanding of political science, psychology, history, and religion to explain the origin and nature of sin. He elaborates on the abortive efforts of the ego to overreach the human condition through partial and disingenuous strategies. He reflects on why collectives, lacking the constraints of individual conscience, so dramatically exceed the sinfulness of the individuals that constitute them.

Systems of human justice are always compromises between competing wills. Thus, perfect love that enters into history is destined to be sacrificed; a fact revealed most vividly in the tragedy of the Cross.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.

How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.

When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.

Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).

Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.

Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.

There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.

Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?

This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.

This Oxford translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is the work of Sarah Broadie and Christopher Rowe. It's easy to pass over since Amazon doesn't have a cover-photo nor any product description, but it should be one of the first translations you consider getting of the Ethics.

The translation is proceded by an 80-page 'philosophical introduction' by Broadie that is superb. She does a good job explicating the Ethics in a reasonable and general way, given a lot of the dispute over the most basic analytic concepts in the literature (for instance the inclusive-dominant debate over eudaimonia). The introduction alone will make it essential for anyone trying to write on the Ethics while giving an overall view of scholarship out there.

The translation itself is very readable, with large print and the proper citations in the column.

Watch out for editions that don't include those, they are usually useless. For instance, Barnes & Noble bought the rights to an edition of the Ethics (one not available on Amazon for obvious reasons) and produced it in a paperback form. It doesn't have the numeric sections accompanying the text, though, and the translation itself is simply a reprint of a fifth edition translation from the 1890s (if an author felt he had to do five editions in ten years, simply spitting it out again 100 years later is a travesty).

A lot of work on the Ethics cites the Barnes collection, and I think it is useful to read this translation side-by-side with that one. My biggest objection is in how this Oxford edition translates "phronesis" and "sophia." The distinction between these two types of knowledge are crucial in understanding Aristotle's ethics. "Phronesis" is usually translated as 'practical wisdom,' and sometimes as 'prudence.' "Sophia" is usually translated 'knowledge.' In this translation "phronesis" is translated as 'wisdom' and "sophia" is translated as 'intellectual accomplishment.' It is very important to keep that in mind when you are reading the text, and if you are interested in Aristotle's discussions of prudential excellence. Anytime 'wisdom' appears in this text, Aristotle is talking specifically about practical wisdom/phronesis, and likewise with 'intellectual accomplishment.' Any apparent vagueness on this note is due to the translation, and frankly I'm surprised they decided to do that. Luckily I read Broadie's introduction, which mentions this on page 46, or else I might have been confused about this later on. Thus, one needs to be very aware that 'wisdom' in this translation is being referred to as a very specific kind of wisdom, namely the ability to reason practically. Not taking this into account will lead to some erroneous interpretations, I believe, and will make some of the discussions in the secondary sources seem confusing and obscure when they don't need to.

Part 3 of the translation is the line-by-line commentary, another commendable quality of this translation that makes it essential. They even do things like chart out the disposition as well as provide useful cross-references. A useful glossary in the back is also helpful, in fact probably essential to deal with any translation confusions like the one I outline above, especially if you are trying to compare translations. There is also a brief topical bibliography of select works as well, and they separate the index into names and subjects.

Overall, this is a great edition. Very well though out, very very useful to the student of Aristotle.

I admit that I have not personally seen this book yet, but I posted a query about translations of the Ethics on the Philosop internet list, and the majority of respondents (university professors) favored Sarah Broadie and Christopher Rowe's translation, which includes an extensive and useful commentary, over all others.

After interviewing Terry on radio, I am convinced that this gentle soul's strong undercurrent provides us with a rich new model of citizen involvement in this, our participatory government. Too many of us dismiss a deeper involvement in democracy with crusty cynicism - we feel ground down by the backhanded tactics used by government officials to strip us of our civil liberties and rape the earth's environment.

What Terry Tempest Williams proposes not only facilitates transformation within our democratic system, but by the simple act of learning to listen with open minds and hearts, we may receive one another's views on a very human scale. If we endeavor to connect in this manner, not only will we have a more functional democracy, we will become better human beings.

Bela Johnson, Medical Intuitive
http://www.belajohnson.com

Host, Alternative Currents
http://www.weru.org

Oh my. This book actually rates 10 stars in today's world. In this slim book, Terry Tempest Williams is calling for community, discussion, breaking out of boxes and labels and working together to solve our problems in democracy's open space. Throughout the book she defines what that open space should be and what would create it. How disheartening it is to know how far in the other direction we have gone in the 3 years since it has been published.

"In the open space of democracy, we engage the qualities of inquiry, intuition, and love as we become a dynamic citizenry, unafraid to exercise our shared knowledge and power. We can dissent. We can vote. We can step forward in times of terror with a confounding calm that will shatter fear and complacency."

As was illustrated in a recent 60 Minutes piece, Terry Tempest Williams describes what a trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge can do to open minds and souls.

"The power of nature is the power of a life in association. Nothing stands alone. On my haunches, I see a sunburst lichen attached to limestone; algae and fungi are working together to break down rock into soil. I cannot help but recognize a radical form of democracy at play. Each organism is rooted in its own biological niche, drawing its power from its relationship to other organisms. An equality of being contributes to an ecological state of health and succession."

It is very unfortunate that this book is out of print. I wish it would be re-issued and distributed widely. The open space of democracy is waiting for us.

I have not read a book in the last ten years that I would give this description to, but The Open Space of Democracy will or at least should go down as an American masterpiece, and a seminal contribution to environmental and political writing. I pre-ordered my copy direct from the publisher and so received and read, or rather devoured, it right after it was published. The triptych of essays in this volume are woven together and inseparable from each other in the way that Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" is inseparable from the rest of A Sand County Almanac.

This book maps a future for America and Americans that is luminous, hopeful, fierce, and prophetic all in one. Anyone who truly cares about our democracy and about the health of the natural world NEEDS to read this, be inspired by it, and take action in honor of it.

Terry Tempest Williams is amazingly articulate. This book while a short, easy read can be read over and over again as her messages can be applied to our everyday life. I bought five copies as this book makes a wonderful gift!

When I got a copy of this book - having forgotten about Dr. Szasz's breadth of outlook and singular erudition - I thought I was going to read a nice little political tract condemning the current American Drug Prohibition. "Our Right to Drugs" is that, of course, but it is so much more - it is a call to intellectual and political arms.

The War on Drugs, as Dr. Szasz so carefully shows, is nothing less than a Jihad, a Holy War waged by the forces of reaction and restriction in our society against all those who think that there should be peaceful choice, or self-ownership, or genuine free thought. And like all Holy Wars, this one permits the worst atrocities to be visited on the unbelieving because they are not just wrong - they are evil.

Like many libertarians, Dr. Szasz has little use for compromise; in this case, by those who favor "decriminalization" or "medicalization" of psychoactive drugs. Such people, the author shows, will only end up replacing the current Ayatollahs (cops and ex-generals) with a new Inquisition lead by doctors and psychologists. In the world of physician-monitored drug usage, instead of being evil, anyone who wants to alter his or her own mood will be labeled as "sick" - and instead of being sent to jail, they will be forced into "treatment".

In trying to think of some literary comparison to "Our Right to Drugs", I can only think of Plato's records of certain iconoclastic dialogues about ancient Athenian closemindedness. Truely, Dr. Szasz is our Socrates.

This book is a supremely courageous and truthful book written by one of the great luminaries of the age(s).
This book "cuts to the chase" as regards fundamental constitutional issues raised by laws regulating
the procurement, possession, sale, and use of drugs.

The book's most striking charge (a correct one, at that!) is that a fundamental tyranny overtook this nation about
90 years ago when "Americans" lost their property rights over their own bodies--all in the name of governmentally-controlled "truth in advertising" for drug sales.

However, this "seemingly benign" governmental goal created untold danger for the very people it was meant to
protect. Szasz rightfully puts America's so-called "drug problem" in proper perspective by suggesting that the
admonition "buyer beware" should have sufficed--for drugs, as for almost everything else.

In the most general terms, this book demonstrates that there are no shortcuts to a thorough-going approach to American Liberty and Freedom. Dr. Szasz very clearly, and effectively, corrects those who claim that drug laws be summarily repealed for any reasons other than their moral unacceptability in a free state.

Making proper analogy to the wrongful justification of the slavery of blacks in America (owing to their mischaracterization as property), Szasz makes it clear that the infringement of property rights (both of your body, and substances you might possess) lies at the heart of America's despotic and tyrannical so-called "War on Drugs."

Although he does not (if memory serves me correctly) directly cite the 9th Amendment in defense of all those who would fight this indigenous, governmentally-sponsored terrorism, he could have:

"THE ENUMERATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, IN THE CONSTITUTION, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, remedy is set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is nature's manure." Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good arguments for drug legalization (and deregulation of prescription drugs), but a little outdated as far as some of his allusions and political terminology go, and not precise enough in his use of the term "legalizers".

He ignores the distinctions between "decriminalization" and "legalization", and lumps all "legalizers" into a single category, as not being "good enough". He does not seem to realize that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs on drugs, ranging from his position, to the position that all drugs should be banned everywhere.

He is uncompromising, and this is politically defeating. Nonetheless, his position is admirable, and his idea of drugs as a "right" similiar to all other "rights" bandied about in political discourse today, is a good one.

Nice philosophy, and one I wish more accepted it, but he's too radical for today's politicians, who are still in the dark ages of social medicine.

Fear of people committing suicide easily, is Szasz's main hypothesis for why we regulate prescription and illicit drugs the way we do in America today.

This book is good for convincing one that drugs should be legalized, but it is no help for accomplishing that feat politically.

This is a fine and brilliant book. Szasz manhandles any pretext for government intervention in medicine and the market for drugs. This is by far the best book on the subject.

Do you want to brought up to speed on the state of the art in philosophical discussions of free will? Do you want to give yourself a top-flight graduate course on this exciting philosophical topic? Then read Robert Kane's The Oxford Handbook on Free Will. This book might be the single best book to study if one wants a comprehensive overview of most of the controversies unfolding in debates about free will and moral responsibility. The essays are all outstanding. Each is penned by one of the leading figures in the field, and each combines an effort to teach at a very advanced level with a novel contribution to the literature pitched from the perspective of the author. For example, in the section devoted to compatibilism (the view that free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism), Kane includes four essays, one by Bernard Berofsky, another by Ishtiyaque Haji, a third by Paul Russell, and a forth by Daniel Dennett and Christopher Taylor. Each essay is detailed, crisp, completely informed, and clear as a bell. Each also advances the author's own views. Reading through this section, one can learn exactly what is now taking place in the arena of compatibilism. The same can be said about the section devoted to libertarianism (the thesis that some persons act from a sort of free will that requires the falsity of determinism). In this section, Kane includes probably the four finest philosophers currently defending this topic, Tim O'Connor, Randy Clarke, Carl Ginet, and Kane himself.

In all, there are eight sections to Kane's collection with a total of 25 essays. The sections are devoted to the following topics: 1) theological issues as they pertain to free will, 2) theories of physics and the free will problem, 3) the consequence argument (a highly influential argument for the thesis that determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise), 4) compatibilism, 5) the relevance of alternative possibilities for moral responsibility (some philosophers think that the freedom to act otherwise is not required for moral responsibility), 6) libertarian views, 7) non-standard views about the relationship between free will, moral responsibility and determinism (such as the view that no one has free will or moral responsibility regardless of the truth or falsity of determinism), and finally, 8) neuroscientific influences on our understanding of the free will topic. An impressive range of topics indeed.

I have been publishing and writing on the topics of free will and moral responsibility for over 10 years now and I simply know of no single collection that even approximates the impressive quality and breadth of Kane's handbook. It is an outstanding book.

So far forth, the editors of the Oxford Handbook series have managed to put together products which both the neophyte and the fully-informed scholar will find beneficial. Robert Kane has certainly done his part to keep up the trend.

All of the essays in this volume are written by philosophers who have made significant individual contributions to the contemporary discussion about human freedom. Most of the authors have also produced influential works in related fields (philosophy of mind, action theory and moral psychology), and many of them are thoroughly conversant with the relevant empirical research in physics and neuroscience. Indeed, parts II and VIII of the book are dedicated, respectively, to the interplay between the problems of free will and quantum physics/chaos theory on the one hand, and recent work in neuroscience on the other. The result is a compilation of essays written with the sort of texture and philosophical sensitivity that repays careful (re-)reading, and brimming with suggestive ideas that could well move the debate into some relatively unexplored terrain. (We should expect nothing less from a volume edited by Kane, who has himself long advocated the importance of approaching the ancient problem of free will from novel directions.) What's more, the collection includes essays from several philosophers whose own books on free will are, though quite important and valuable, somewhat cost prohibitive. (Anyone living on a graduate student's salary who's tried to pick up a copy of Pereboom's or Clarke's or Double's or Strawson's books will know what I mean.) So the expense of the present volume is, when seen in that light, thoroughly justifiable. In fact it's a steal! Or so I've tried to convince my wife.

Finally, with his characteristic combination of clarity and rigor, Kane provides a lengthy introduction to the book that will help both the professional philosopher and the new-comer find their bearings in this complex debate with as little intellectual turmoil as can reasonably be hoped for. The book is a good one, highly recommended.

I first encountered Bob Kane's skill with the daedal discipline of free will in his book *The Significance of Free Will.* At that time, I realized that Kane had an almost suspicious talent for articulating my own objections, and then articulating a response that would often satisfy me more than my own.

While such a talent may be a bit threatening for readers aiming to claim their own victories, Kane's affability and enthusiasm always leave the reader not only with the necessary knowledge, but with a sense of pride in having participated in his well-authenticated jaunts.

This work, in particular, highlights Kane's skills as both an original author and an editor with an honest eye for the best arguments of his opponents. It will certainly become a staple, if it has not already, for professional scholars of free will and curious by-standers alike. The *Oxford Handbook of Free Will* draws together balanced selections from the most relevant authors in the field, and-despite its depth-manages to cover a range broad enough that the book would be equally well placed on the shelves of theologians, philosophers, and physicians.

My main criticism is that the compilation elides some selections that, to me, seem indispensable. Then again, such a problem *should* be inevitable for a field as factious as free will, and is blunted by Kane's need to balance his equations.

The Oxford group has again demonstrated their wisdom in selecting Kane as the editor of this volume. Compared to its competitors in the prosy pantheon of free-will texts, this selection will leave you energized to gnaw through the next puzzle (rather than feeling deflated by the fact that there remain more arguments to be broached).

-Christian P. Erickson, M.D.
christianerickson@alumni.duke.edu

The Oxford Handbook of Free Will is a nice overview of issues related to free will. Kane's introduction is itself insightful. Authors appear to be surveyish of the literature that pertains to the topic they are covering. The book is broken up into the following sections:

Part I: Theology and Fatalism
Part II: Physics, Determinism, and Indeterminism
Part III: The Modal or Consequence Argument for Incompatibilism
Part IV: Compatibilist Perspectives
Part V: Frankfurt-Style Cases
Part VI: Libertarian Perspectives on Free Agency and Will
Part VII: Nonstandard Views
Part VIII: Neurophilosophy and Free Will

The extensive bibliography in the back is also worth having for one's own research. The articles are written by a group of all-stars in the field: Fischer, O'Conner, Widerker, Dennett, Zagzebski, Mele, Double, Pereboom, Ginet, and on and on (sorry to all those I've left out). With all the work being done on this topic, I wouldn't be surprised if Oxford will need to publish another edition with new articles in about 5-10 years. But for now, this is a great selection of essays and I highly recommend this for becoming familiar with the territory, even if it costs a wallet-killing 80 bucks!

I think the best point made throughout was that we should not necessarily apply the morals of 3,000 years ago in our
religious texts of today. Specifically, the whole point about when people in Biblical/Talmudic/Koranic/Vedic/whatever times got married: They got married when they were 13-15 years old. Today we would call that statutory rape! So if people these days get married around age 28, it is unreasonable to demand complete abstinence. I did not think of it in those terms before, but the book makes the point very well.

Hi! I went to Dr. Reimer for counseling for a very long time over different periods in my life. I first got interested in him when he spoke to our teacher's group at a workshop before school started. I'd never had the guts to go to a counselor before, but his talk got to me. The book is EXACTLY the same as that talk so long ago! It is so HEAVY you can't even believe it! He deals in reality, and he always has as long as I've known him, and he's VERY in touch with the very deepest feelings that just about any client could experience. Reading this book has helped me so much that it's not even funny! I was going to him for counseling a while back, but I was way too distessed at that point to absorb a lot of what he was saying, now, I can handle it a little better, and I'm soaking it up like mad!!! This is a VERY IMPRESSIVE WORK!! You won't believe it!!

At times I thought I was talking into a mirror, because I could so relate to what Dr. Reimer had to say! He had me chuckling as I read. I didn't agree with everything he said, but a lot of it made great sense to me. But then, that seems to be his goal---to get us to think on our own, and make our own decisions. The McDonald's application in the last chapter had me in tears, because it was so funny! I thought it was a easy, engaging and fascinating read!

This book isn't for those who think inside the box. It is a provocative instruction book for life, which delivers its message with humor. I don't agree with everything that Dr. Reimer says, but he has caused me to develop some healthier views. His whole point is to encourage the reader to think independently, and to then decide which parts of their former mind-set to keep, and which to put in the disposal. It's the kind of book that might be read in one day, if you're ready to consider a more open view of the world. It captivated me, until I finished it! It's one of those books that you either love or hate. If you don't want to challenge your traditions and assumptions, it may make you angry. But if you're tired of the old dysfunctional ways, it will be one huge breath of fresh air!

Sherosky argues that corporations, like people, have a character and a soul and a set of values--and that molding toward humanistic values and away from those driven by greed is a central mandate for our time. Written well before the 2002-03 round of business scandals, it seems eerily prescient, if a bit dated in places.

A brief excerpt:

"...this whole corporate concept is still somewhat of an enigma. Governments do not know how to deal with it because legally there is this illusion of a lack of the human element. We never sat in conversation that the 'people within corporation X' did something. We just say that 'X did this or that'. We point to a collective entity as a singular, impersonal unit despite the fact that living human beings push the buttons... "Profit is not a sin, but it is the real motive and charter of corporate entities. In order to obtain a profit, those within the structure not only produce products and services, but legally hide if improprieties are used to garner the profit. Corporate structures become havens for profiteers with unscrupulous character.

"Since the corporate entity is not traditionally looked upon as a person, there appears a sense of inhumanity that is truly frightening.

"It explains how oil spills, price fixing and product failures can be treated so cold[ly] that human emotions appear missing. This inhuman quality, although a legal safeguard, is also a key ingredient to all business failures and bad press." (pp.67-68)

While the book is somewhat densely written and could have benefited by a good edit, his message is important and worth the effort.

With the recent bombshell of the Enron failure, it is becoming increasingly apparent that somethings are amiss in Corporate America. Those "somethings" are explored in this revealing expose' by Sherosky, a veteran himself of corporate structures both large and small. Vince Lombardi, legendary football coach of the Green Bay Packers once said, "winning isn't everything, its the only thing". This attitude has permeated the corporate world - nothing else matters except the "bottom line". Whether a company is a good citizen, or a concerned employer, or environmentaly conscientious has no relevance! Greed is god. Sherosky shows how this manageent philosophy is leaving a lot of money on the table. He counsels that attention to character and virtue in the market place and the workplace would result in ever-growing profits for consumer, employer and employee. If we continue the business practices of the past into the 21st century we will continue to reap the same disfunctional results. This book shows how that can be avoided. Must reading for the progressive and enlightened citizen.

Character is a quality issue, too. Integral to every business process, human nature is the greatest shaping force of corporate performance. Insightful lessons of this book promotes a deeper understanding of human nature; and teaches how to positively contribute toward perfecting total organizational quality. Audience: * Working Personnel of all levels, Managers, Union Leaders * Self-Help: Individual and Organizational Training Reading Advantanges: * Author's 28 years includes Saturn Corps. Launch Team * Exceptional insight into the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of human, organizational character development * Challenges the hot issues of teamwork, diversities of race, gender, position and empowerment

As a Professional Career Coach for women, I can see that the author has obviously spent a great deal of time thinking and researching his work. This is not your usual 'corporate strategy' book -- rather it is a work in progress. Sherosky has brought into focus the main issues between corporate success and spiritual happiness. Does one have to lose one to gain the other -- not according to the author. I agree. You can have both. His chapter on "Tapping the Power of Gender Teamwork" is one of the reasons I recommend his book to my clients. I recommend any professional, seeking a better understanding of the corporate world to read this book.

From Foreword by Dr. Elmer Towns, Dean of Religion, Liberty University:
Postmodernism is a word that is currently used by many ministers in their sermons, but not many people on the street understand it. As a result, most people are confused about it when they hear the word. Dr. Brewer has helped people understand what it is, how it affects the church, and what the church can do about it. This book will help you understand culture, and help to adapt our unchanging message to a changing world. May we all study it and understand the times.

From Foreword by Elmer Towns:
Postmodernism is a word that is currently used by many ministers in their sermons, but not many people on the street understand it. As a result, most people are confused about it when they hear the word. Dr. Brewer has helped people understand what it is, how it affects the church, and what the church can do about it. This book will help you understand culture, and help to adapt our unchanging message to a changing world. May we all study it and understand the times.

From Foreword by Elmer Towns:
Postmodernism is a word that is currently used by many ministers in their sermons, but not many people on the street understand it. As a result, most people are confused about it when they hear the word. Dr. Brewer has helped people understand what it is, how it affects the church, and what the church can do about it. This book will help you understand culture, and help to adapt our unchanging message to a changing world. May we all study it and understand the times.

Its about time that someone finally told us what to do about postmodernism rather than just what it is. This book couldnt have come out at a better time. I especially liked the acronym and the practical examples, especially Xenos, of what churhes are doing to minister to postmoderns. If nothing else, the book is worth these practical examples. I've read a number of books on the topic but this is the first to give me some ideas on how to rethink outreach.

This book was written by the famous Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli in 1531. This book is a classic and I was pleasantly surprised that the content was not dated and the principles translate easily into the modern worlds of business and politics.
The author wrote this book as an instruction guide for governing princes in the 1500's when Italy was divided into city states and were being defeated by many foreign powers. I belive that the work is directed to Lorenzo de Medici by a letter included in the work and because at the end of the writing Machiavelli calls for a prince to unite and lead Italy against its oppressors.
The book is not unethical as I had imagined from my understanding of the ruthlessness of Machiavellian ethics. The author is only explaining tactics to use to maintain power in a kingdom or city state that are pragmatic for his time period.
Here are some examples from the book:
1. When conquering a territory keep the current laws and institutions in place, but eliminate all the family of the defeated prince.
2. When trouble is sensed ahead of time it can be easily remedied, if you wait for it to show itself, it is to late.
3. Whoever is responsible for another becoming powerful, ruins himself.
4. There is no surer way of keeping possesion than by devastation.
5. Men do you are harm either because they hate you or they fear you.
6. Violence must be inflicted once and for all, it must be over quickly.
7. Build your power through the people.
8. Power is maintained through religious institutions.
9. Neglect the art of war and you lose your state.
10. If you act virtuously, you will be undone by those who are not, make use of this or not according to need.
The above is just a small sampling of the lessons in this book. My review can not do this book justice, it is full of wisdom and life lessons. It is a guide book for business leaders and politicians. I strongly suggest adding this book to your home library and referring to it often.

Il Principe is a tiny book--a little over one-hundred pages--that has given its author everlasting fame and notoriety. So much so, in fact, that "Machiavellian,"--like "Orwellian," or "Hobbesian," or "Rabelaisian,"--has entered the adjectival lexicon. (Rarefied company indeed.)

And yet...the book is unbelievably tame. How it ever inspired such a hue and outcry, I can't fathom. Machiavelli writes rather pedantically and systematically about how to rule a principality...a micro-state. (Maybe the translator abetted the fustiness of the prose...something I think highly likely.)

Far from being the tongue of Satan, Machiavelli simply espouses common-sense realpolitik. Sometimes a ruler must lie. Sometimes a ruler must not keep his word. Sometimes a ruler must exercise cruelty. Sometimes it is better to be a miser than a benefactor. Sometimes it is better to be feared than loved. The ruler's life may very well depend on it. In the bloody Italy of Machiavelli's day, that was no great shakes.

Yet Machiavelli is also a bit of a moralist. He writes that an ally should aid another not only because it's the smart thing to do...but because it is the right thing to do. He invokes God repeatedly, and adduces Biblical examples to illustrate his arguments.

Il Principe is not entertaining...it is a propadeutic for statecraft, dry, dispassionate (except for the last chapter), and full of obscure, eye-glazing references to forgotten men. But it is a seminal work of political science, and something that every educated person should dip into.

"It must be understood, that a prince . . . cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."

His name has become synonymous with (1) corrupt, totalitarian government, and (2) a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for gain. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a Florentine statesman and political theorist, who believed that theological and moral values have no place in politics. He is best known for THE PRINCE (1513), which he wrote to gain influence with the ruling Medici family. (Machiavelli's model for THE PRINCE may have been Cesare Borgia, a cunning and cruel man.) Machiavelli offers instruction on how to acquire and maintain power in the face of any other consideration: "the end justifies the means;" "it is better to be feared than loved; "it is better to be miserly than generous;" "it is better to be cruel than merciful;" for instance. It goes without saying, modern readers may gain insight from such Machiavellian instruction into succeeding in either politics, corporate culture, or in the self-obsessed, success-by-any-means, get-mine Games of Life. (It should be noted that this review refers to the 2005 Penguin Great Ideas edition of THE PRINCE, translated by George Bull.)

G. Merritt

Whatever your preconceived notion of this book is, it will be difficult to come away from it without a respect for the author's thoroughness and insight. The common disparagements against Machiavelli are not well supported by the text unless you are willing to nitpick his arguments.

The book is a treatise on how a ruler should gain, manage, and preserve power. He describes the various types of temporal powers a ruler may hold, and he describes the strategies that he thinks are necessary to maintain it for a long time. The book is full of examples from the past and careful analysis of the successes and failures of those rulers. From these examples, he derives his laws of conduct which forms the bulk of the book.

He receives the most criticism for his "ends justify the means" morality. To this point, he gives his critics only limited ammunition, though. The goal of a ruler, he argues, is to maximize the happiness of his subjects. This means peace, stability, freedom, and high standards of living. A ruler cannot provide these things if he is weak or antagonistic towards his subjects. So Machiavelli is arguing for a strong head of state, not a terrible one. All actions should be aimed at increasing the common good, even if sometimes it requires performing seemingly evil deeds. An action that seems immoral at the time (executing a mild troublemaker) may actually be beneficial in the long run (establishing rule of law and stability). The key to being a ruler is to know how to wield power justly, even if the wielding of it seems immoral at times.

For someone of his time, he does not place his trust heavily in God. Instead he seems to hold fast to the platitude that God helps those who help themselves. This is probably what his critics were quickest to glom onto. He presents a new morality based on power and removes God from the equation totally.

Reading the book now in the middle of the 2008 presidential race is perfect timing. Reading Machiavelli's admonishons and exhortations and then comparing them to the actions of the various candidates, you can get a totally different perspective on the maneuverings of each candidate.

This book is a great short read at anytime, but right now is probably the best chance to see how the practical application of Machiavelli's theories works out. An easy 5 stars.