Welcome to the Ethics selection...

Of my own books:

• Understand Ethics gives a general introduction for the general reader, for students at A level, of for those who are thinking of going on to study Philosophy or Religious Studies at university. It is also available for the Kindle.

• Ethical Theory is an a level text, particularly aimed at those taking Ethics papers as part of a Religious Studies A level.

• An Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics is for AS level students taking Religious Studies.

For more information on any of these, click below the relevant title on the right.

For students at AS/A2 level, free notes are available from my lectures on the following:

• Virtue Ethics

• Natural Law Ethics

• Abortion and Euthanasia

• Conscience 

• Aristotle and Virtue Ethics

• The Ethics of War

• Sexual Morality: Christian demands and modern attitudes

• Meta-ethics

• Jeremy Bentham                                                                              
  Utilitarianism

just clink on the 'Notes' link at the top of this page

Science and moral values?

Agree with him or not, Sam Harris argues well and gives everyone a great deal to think about. Here is a short lecture in which he claims that science can provide a basis for ethical values.  This is a great way to start the discussion about how facts and values are related. Naturally, being Sam Harris, he has a few juicy criticisms of religion in store, but don't let that (if you are from a religious background) stop you appreciating the logic of his argument.  A great stimulus piece for groups of ethics students!

Whether facts and values should be kept separate has always been a big issue for ethics. Sam Harris, in the lecture featured here, wants to link them. Here, at the other extreme is A J Ayer (in Language, Truth and Logic)…

‘…. in saying that a certain type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement, not even a statement about my own state of mind. I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments. And the man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments. So that there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition.’

But does that view – in which moral views are merely subjective wishes, without factual basis – adequate? Does it help or hinder the process of moral decision-making? And particularly, if it is merely a matter of ‘moral sentiments’, should we not ask why we should have such sentiments in the first place?

Listen to Sam Harris critically - the relationship between objective facts, science and moral values is rather more slippery than he would have us believe!