In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Ethics & the Environment 8.2 (2003) 126-131



[Access article in PDF]
Three Challenges to Ethics, by James Sterba. Oxford University Press, 2000. Paperback, pp. 160. ISBN: 0195124766. $14.95.

In Three Challenges to Ethics, James Sterba's central claim is that environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism challenge traditional Western ethics, as exemplified by Aristotelian, Kantian, and utilitarian moral theory. Sterba understands these views respectively as the claims that Western ethics is biased against non-human creatures, women, and non-Western cultures. If taken seriously, these schools of thought require making adjustments in our concepts of what sorts of things can have goods or interests, who is rational, and what sorts of intuitions get counted among the data we examine. Sterba offers a decisive argument for giving these views a fair hearing. He argues that to dismiss these views without a fair hearing is to beg the question in favor of the accepted views.

There are two primary projects that run through this book. The first project examines whether or not entire groups of people or categories of thought can be dismissed. The second project shows that particular schools of thought and individual thinkers challenge traditional ethics by examining the important contributions they make. [End Page 126]

The views of women, non-white, and non-Western thinkers have been and are frequently dismissed prior to any hearing (sometimes by relying on historically dated and biased hearings) on the assumption that only white men of European descent can make meaningful contributions to Western culture. It isn't unusual for people who hold this view to point to the historical absence of contributions from women or non-whites as evidence for their inability to contribute. When a few representatives are brought forth, it is claimed that these few exceptions actually prove the rule. Without real evidence that shows that, as a rule, particular categories of people cannot make contributions to the discussion (which seems a priori false, if anything does), we have both a moral and intellectual obligation to take all people and positions seriously. His discussion of whether or not to take environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism seriously is framed by the straightforward concern about whether or not those who reject these problems, thinkers, and ideas as genuine or legitimate are begging the question in favor of their own position. He shows decisively that if those who work in this area and who do intellectual work generally do not want to be accused of begging the question with regard to these issues, then they must assess these positions and the corresponding work on a par with the work of Western male philosophers. By holding ourselves accountable to our own standards, we are obligated to give even possibly unpromising views a fair hearing, a hearing on a par with positions we favor. Using the standards of Western reasoning, we must provide evidence that these positions are inherently worthless in order to dismiss them wholesale or at the very least reasons to dismiss individual thinkers. In order to do this, we must begin by evaluating these positions fairly.

Having made this case, Sterba moves on to show that there is good evidence to take these various challenges and the particular challengers seriously. In the first chapter of the book Sterba discusses the challenge posed to traditional ethics by relativism, and having shown that there are at least good reasons for rejecting relativism, goes on to discuss the demands of morality. He also has a concise introduction to the ideas of Aristotle, Kant, and utilitarianism.

The rest of the book addresses the three challenges, first by presenting an introduction to the particular challenge, which is both brief and detailed, and then showing how each set of criticisms can be accommodated by moral theory. He discusses, arguably, the three most important moral positions, Aristotle, Kant, and the utilitarians, along with their traditional [End Page 127] responses. He then goes on to show how the challenges to traditional ethics can be accommodated, largely by Kantian ethics. Because of the brevity of the book, some background might be required if this book is used in introductory courses...

pdf

Share