What do you think?
Rate this book
Be Good How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything
2001~2011년 미국 '뉴욕 타임스' 주말판에 연재된 생활 윤리 칼럼 '윤리시스트 (The Ethicist)'가 책으로 나왔다. '윤리시스트'는 고민남·고민녀가 사소하지만 까다로운 윤리 문제를 두고 윤리 선생한테 답을 구하면 대답을 해주는 문답 형식이다. 호텔 미니바 사용 예절 같은 가벼운 질문도 있고, '배심원의 실정법 초월적 판단' 같은 무거운 질문도 있다. 때에 따라서 질문에 문제남·문제녀가 등장하기도 한다. '나는 뉴욕의 윤리시스트'에서는 열여섯 개의 주제로 질문을 분류했다. 주제 중에는 가족, 의학, 시민, 돈, 9/11, 예술, 공동체, 학교, 사랑 등이 있다.
228 pages, Paperback
First published August 10, 2012
54 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
February 10, 2023
I like the concept: a column in the New York Times examining the ethics of, well, everything.
I'm less sure about its execution. Randy Cohen is a smart and funny guy, but he's not a philosopher, nor an ethicist, and the basis for his decisions is frequently unclear and always inconsistent. He doesn't seem to have a steady ethical framework. He emphasizes intent, considers consequences, and wants proportional consequences. He acknowledges the role of duty and values – but sometimes recognizes only one set of values or one of several competing duties. He may identify only one of several options to address a problem – although he is scrupulous in asking for feedback from diverse parties before drawing a decision.
For example, one reader asked how she should respond to a real estate agent, an Orthodox Jew, who refused to shake her hand after they signed a contract, as he did not touch women, per Orthodox teachings. She noted that she opposes gender discrimination, but also supports freedom of religious expression. Cohen responded to the discrimination, but not the religious expression: "If this involved only his own person—adherence to laws concerning diet or dress, for example—you should of course be tolerant. But his actions directly affect you. Sexism is sexism, even when motivated by religious convictions. I believe you should tear up your contract" (p. 307).
It seems to me that Cohen's response was directed to the wrong place and clearly disproportional in its consequences. The realtor was an individual, attempting to live a godly life, albeit a man who had not examined himself or his values well. The buyer wanted to find an ethical middle ground – feminist but respectful of religious expression – but was given a response that ignored the one set of values for the second. Why? Were there other options? I understand the desire to tear up the contract, but two unethical actions from opposing parties does not make a right. Perhaps she could have been quietly assertive in helping the realtor see how his behavior affected her. This would have honored her feelings and both sets of values, while offering a more proportional consequence to his actions and that would maintain the relationship.
In fact, Cohen later reported a less confrontational alternative given by several Orthodox rabbis, "who noted that while Orthodox Judaism does bar such physical contact, it also discourages giving offense or causing embarrassment to another person," as refusing to shake the buyer's hand would do (p. 310). Such a solution – shaking hands if the other party initiated it – would have maintained the relationship, built bridges, and extended respect for both parties' perspectives.
I'm less sure about its execution. Randy Cohen is a smart and funny guy, but he's not a philosopher, nor an ethicist, and the basis for his decisions is frequently unclear and always inconsistent. He doesn't seem to have a steady ethical framework. He emphasizes intent, considers consequences, and wants proportional consequences. He acknowledges the role of duty and values – but sometimes recognizes only one set of values or one of several competing duties. He may identify only one of several options to address a problem – although he is scrupulous in asking for feedback from diverse parties before drawing a decision.
For example, one reader asked how she should respond to a real estate agent, an Orthodox Jew, who refused to shake her hand after they signed a contract, as he did not touch women, per Orthodox teachings. She noted that she opposes gender discrimination, but also supports freedom of religious expression. Cohen responded to the discrimination, but not the religious expression: "If this involved only his own person—adherence to laws concerning diet or dress, for example—you should of course be tolerant. But his actions directly affect you. Sexism is sexism, even when motivated by religious convictions. I believe you should tear up your contract" (p. 307).
It seems to me that Cohen's response was directed to the wrong place and clearly disproportional in its consequences. The realtor was an individual, attempting to live a godly life, albeit a man who had not examined himself or his values well. The buyer wanted to find an ethical middle ground – feminist but respectful of religious expression – but was given a response that ignored the one set of values for the second. Why? Were there other options? I understand the desire to tear up the contract, but two unethical actions from opposing parties does not make a right. Perhaps she could have been quietly assertive in helping the realtor see how his behavior affected her. This would have honored her feelings and both sets of values, while offering a more proportional consequence to his actions and that would maintain the relationship.
In fact, Cohen later reported a less confrontational alternative given by several Orthodox rabbis, "who noted that while Orthodox Judaism does bar such physical contact, it also discourages giving offense or causing embarrassment to another person," as refusing to shake the buyer's hand would do (p. 310). Such a solution – shaking hands if the other party initiated it – would have maintained the relationship, built bridges, and extended respect for both parties' perspectives.
November 2, 2012
I am not a philosopher. I have no PhD. I have no credentials to validate my moral reasoning.Randy Cohen, who wrote the New York Times column "The Ethicist" for twelve years, waited until very late in his book to make this admission explicit. My wife, who does have a doctorate in social ethics, says politely that Cohen often pulls his opinions "out of his bum." Which may be true, but Cohen's still a careful and logical thinker and—what's more—a competent articulator of those thoughts. His amateur opinions on (it says here) "how to navigate the ethics of everything" are always lively, humorous and forcefully expressed—and, honestly, I agree with him just about all of the time. Not always—what would be the fun of that?—but almost. And it would be hypocritical for me to deride the efforts of articulate amateurs in a public forum, wouldn't it?
—p.314
This book collects hundreds of Cohen's "The Ethicist" columns, under broad categories like Family, Civic Life, Sports, the Arts, School and Religion. Each such chapter starts with an essay on the subject at hand, and then dives into a series of individual readers' questions, each followed by Cohen's thoughtful answer and, often, some of the fallout from that answer. Occasionally, Cohen even recants his original opinion in the face of cogent argument.
Cohen also says that he grew to understand, over the course of the twelve-year run of his column, that the phrase "a soft answer turneth away wrath" is not just an ethical approach; it's also eminently effective... something it took me awhile to learn, but which I try to practice as well—I've seen it work. His even-tempered responses to even the silliest reader queries are exemplary for their tone, even if one ignores the advice being provided.
I found Be Good very difficult to put down, although the question-and-answer format did become a little difficult to take in large doses; I think I enjoyed Cohen's advice a little more when it was presented to me on a weekly basis. Either way, though, it's consistently fun to read Cohen's work... and it's possible that in the process of deciding whether to agree with him, a little clarification may have come into my own amateur system of ethics as well.
October 27, 2012
I was very disappointed in this book. I expected a few insights on difficult questions, but got almost nothing of that sort. In fact, the number of interesting perspectives was smaller than the number of peculiar positions. For example, Cohen considers allowing drivers to talk on hands-free phones but not handheld phones is "breathtaking cynicism or dazzling ignorance" because the problem with cell phone use is "cognitive, not mechanical." Thus, talking on a hands-free phone while driving is "unethical." My question to Cohen is whether talking to a passenger while driving is also unethical, for the same reason.
My other complaint is with the book's presentation, not its behavioral recommendations. The author used to be a writer for the David Letterman show, and the book is filled with jokey asides that I found gratuitous, sophomoric and distracting. The humor also put me off because it obviously aimed at a demographic primed to laugh at snarky comments about Republicans: the discussion of unattributed ghostwriting is exemplified by a George W. Bush speech and a Sarah Palin book; a discussion of hypocrisy by "the former governor of a large Northeastern state"; the example of ignorance is Bush's pronunciation "nucular." You don't have to be a Bush fan (I'm not) to get the feeling that only liberal elites are expected to be ethical or intelligent enough to read Cohen's book.
Having hoped to find an engrossing and challenging read, I finished Be Good merely convinced that I would not read another piece by the author.
My other complaint is with the book's presentation, not its behavioral recommendations. The author used to be a writer for the David Letterman show, and the book is filled with jokey asides that I found gratuitous, sophomoric and distracting. The humor also put me off because it obviously aimed at a demographic primed to laugh at snarky comments about Republicans: the discussion of unattributed ghostwriting is exemplified by a George W. Bush speech and a Sarah Palin book; a discussion of hypocrisy by "the former governor of a large Northeastern state"; the example of ignorance is Bush's pronunciation "nucular." You don't have to be a Bush fan (I'm not) to get the feeling that only liberal elites are expected to be ethical or intelligent enough to read Cohen's book.
Having hoped to find an engrossing and challenging read, I finished Be Good merely convinced that I would not read another piece by the author.
September 2, 2012
Like many people must, I get some kind of pleasure that I don’t completely understand from reading advice columns, and the New York Times Magazine’s The Ethicist has long been one of my favorites. Answers are opinionated but based on reason usually balanced by common sense, so they are not so much dictates as starting points for further thought or lively discussions around the breakfast table. Randy Cohen was the original Ethicist and he held that job for 12 years, but I never knew his background which includes writing for late night TV, an interesting prerequisite. Here he opines on numerous issues, including some of my favorite conundrums--questions of animal rights, the proper response to athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and how to balance respect for other cultures with support of human rights tenets that those cultures don’t abide by.
In some of the more interesting sections he writes about some of the general principles behind ethics itself. People are not crudely divided into honest and dishonest, he says, different circumstances elicit different behaviors in all, meaning among other things that we should not test people by tempting them to stray. Examining smaller issues of ethics is a way to learn something about a culture by looking at its unguarded moments and as individuals we should avoid even nominal ethical lapses because they can have a coarsening effect on our awareness and judgments.
This is not the kind of book you’d want to read straight through, but since it’s full of short queries and responses it’s perfect when time is limited or when the reader is likely to be interrupted. I read an advanced review copy of this book.
In some of the more interesting sections he writes about some of the general principles behind ethics itself. People are not crudely divided into honest and dishonest, he says, different circumstances elicit different behaviors in all, meaning among other things that we should not test people by tempting them to stray. Examining smaller issues of ethics is a way to learn something about a culture by looking at its unguarded moments and as individuals we should avoid even nominal ethical lapses because they can have a coarsening effect on our awareness and judgments.
This is not the kind of book you’d want to read straight through, but since it’s full of short queries and responses it’s perfect when time is limited or when the reader is likely to be interrupted. I read an advanced review copy of this book.
December 6, 2012
I was a fan of Randy Cohen's "The Ethicist" columns that ran in the Sunday New York Times Magazine for 12 years. I only discovered it about 4 years ago and quickly became addicted. His column was the first thing I read when I opened up the Times on Sunday mornings. Cohen's responses to every day ethical dilemmas were always thoughtful and respectful of the person who posed the question; but it was the humor he interjected that really made the column so enjoyable for me.
This book organizes selected columns by themes (work, neighbors, technology, love, etc) and are prefaced by his views on the topic followed by a selection of columns that retain his original response. In several cases he provides updates either to reflect new insight he has had since writing the response or the fall-out that resulted from his answer.
His recognition that his responses could evoke strong reaction (not always positive) and the need to response with grace and respect was as useful as his insights into ethical dilemmas. This book is worth keeping on your bookshelf (electronic or physical) and going back to periodically as a reminder that leading an ethical life takes a fair amount of self reflection and a willingness to take the high road even when we would rather not.
This book organizes selected columns by themes (work, neighbors, technology, love, etc) and are prefaced by his views on the topic followed by a selection of columns that retain his original response. In several cases he provides updates either to reflect new insight he has had since writing the response or the fall-out that resulted from his answer.
His recognition that his responses could evoke strong reaction (not always positive) and the need to response with grace and respect was as useful as his insights into ethical dilemmas. This book is worth keeping on your bookshelf (electronic or physical) and going back to periodically as a reminder that leading an ethical life takes a fair amount of self reflection and a willingness to take the high road even when we would rather not.
January 21, 2013
Silly and trivial.
This is a compilation, with added commentary, of the author's "The Ethicist" columns in the New York Times Magazine. It is an exercise in the utmost banality.
An ethics treatise will tackle the tough issues, right? Like abortion, mercy killing, homosexual marriage, collateral damage to civilians. Nope. This one ducks all of those. Instead we get the following:
--Is it ethical for a vegetarian/animal rights proponent to swim with the dolphins?
--Is it ethical for a vegetarian cat lover to buy meat-based cat food?
--Should the family of a little league batter pay for a car window smashed by a foul ball?
--Is it ethical for an opponent of the Iraq War to invest in oil futures?
--It is ethical to send a college-student intern for coffee?
--Is it immoral to sing rhe N-word in Stephen Foster's songs?
--Should a woman resign from her Curves fitness center membership because the
owner opposes abortion?
With religious-like certitude, the author insists on casting his mundane public policy views as matters of high morality. So we get four pages of high-dudgeon argument on why cars are immoral. A former comedy writer, he seems to have no sense of humor about this.
Give us a break. We have better things to do.
This is a compilation, with added commentary, of the author's "The Ethicist" columns in the New York Times Magazine. It is an exercise in the utmost banality.
An ethics treatise will tackle the tough issues, right? Like abortion, mercy killing, homosexual marriage, collateral damage to civilians. Nope. This one ducks all of those. Instead we get the following:
--Is it ethical for a vegetarian/animal rights proponent to swim with the dolphins?
--Is it ethical for a vegetarian cat lover to buy meat-based cat food?
--Should the family of a little league batter pay for a car window smashed by a foul ball?
--Is it ethical for an opponent of the Iraq War to invest in oil futures?
--It is ethical to send a college-student intern for coffee?
--Is it immoral to sing rhe N-word in Stephen Foster's songs?
--Should a woman resign from her Curves fitness center membership because the
owner opposes abortion?
With religious-like certitude, the author insists on casting his mundane public policy views as matters of high morality. So we get four pages of high-dudgeon argument on why cars are immoral. A former comedy writer, he seems to have no sense of humor about this.
Give us a break. We have better things to do.
October 20, 2012
Very entertaining and surprisingly funny...not surprising when you realize that the author has four Emmys earned writing for David Letterman. I think my only complaint is that there is no academic depth (for example, one would expect a very different book if one with the same title were written by, say, Peter Singer). The book stays pretty much at the level of trying to think through issues with some common sense, and checking the reasoning by substitution. That being said, I think the world would be a much better place if its population would routinely apply this high a level of reasoning to actions and policies in the public sphere.
The book is derived from short columns written for a New York Times column as opinion/entertainment, and even without the aforementioned depth, I found it highly enjoyable.
The book is derived from short columns written for a New York Times column as opinion/entertainment, and even without the aforementioned depth, I found it highly enjoyable.
January 8, 2013
A solidly interesting, easily digestible book. It's divided into topical sections ("community," "technology," etc.) and comprised of short Q&A's focused on ethics & morality. My favorites were the ones where I couldn't predict Randy Cohen's response, of which there were several -- he's careful to separate ethics from morality, legality, and tradition, which makes for interesting answers every so often. This isn't simplified, thankfully, because one's believes & guiding principles shouldn't be, I reckon. Three stars because it's really intelligent and thoughtful, although there were a few brief portions where I found my eyes wandering to the next section. This doesn't need to be read chronologically or in one sitting, which is great for anyone who's busy or looking for a change in their typical format. Still, this couldn't top Cheryl Strayed's fantastic "Dear Sugar" for me.
October 23, 2012
I would call this ethics "light". I enjoy Cohen's writing style, but the book tackles pretty mundane ethical questions. I heard him speak on NPR and found him fascinating, so my expectations for the book were pretty high. It would be a great bathroom book.
January 22, 2013
This book is good to make a person laugh out loud, ponder some possiblities, promotes civility. I liked to think on the idea that one can sin alone but have to be amongst people to be unethical. What would be the exceptions to that? Or is it a fast rule?
May 2, 2020
'Be Good' brings together a selection of Randy Cohen's 'The Ethicist' columns in the New York Times, covering twelve years and a wide range of ethical dilemmas, from sports, to 9/11 and civic life. Like any regular feature, not every column is a winner (although I only outright disagreed with one of Cohen's responses, but I can't remember what it was about so maybe it wasn't so important). While reading, there were many points where I either laughed, shouted with indignation, or paused to think, 'Huh, how would I respond to this?' On that alone, I recommend reading this book, particularly as a group. As one regular column reader did with their family, I recommend gathering your nearest and dearest around you and set out to read one column a day. Debate it furiously and see where it leads. It beats reading it by yourself and then boring your husband as you try to recount the dilemma and Cohen's pithy and/or facetious response. It can only improve your moral reasoning, debating skills, and family bonds. Maybe.
May 9, 2019
A good read
I was amused on reading in the epilogue that he compared himself to Ann Landers, but realized that the comparison was apt. An advice columnist is an advice columnist no matter the subject. All in all, I found the book interesting and informative. His little asides were most often amusing, but I got a little tired of the political ones. The book made me think and entertained me, it was worth the time and the read. One of my best ways of determining the worth of a book is to decide if I would like to meet the author and spend time talking to him/her. I would definitely like to meet Mr. Cohen.
I was amused on reading in the epilogue that he compared himself to Ann Landers, but realized that the comparison was apt. An advice columnist is an advice columnist no matter the subject. All in all, I found the book interesting and informative. His little asides were most often amusing, but I got a little tired of the political ones. The book made me think and entertained me, it was worth the time and the read. One of my best ways of determining the worth of a book is to decide if I would like to meet the author and spend time talking to him/her. I would definitely like to meet Mr. Cohen.
July 20, 2022
an interesting read and okay intro to ethics. but because of how long ago some of the columns were written, some points were very outdated and the response for “crime and punishment” really made me uncomfortable. some of these columns were dreadfully boring and some were actually good ethical arguments and some were just plain stupid. Like, “is it unethical that I don’t tell my wife im cheating on her when she won’t sleep with me?” This reads like a bad Reddit AITA post. It reads like a long book of one man’s opinions, best taken with a grain of salt. While ethics in a perfect world should be objective, I felt just a bit too much opinion.
August 6, 2017
Cohen is insightful and makes fine distinctions on ethical issues (Ethicist--nice gig if you can get it). This is the kind of book where you can jump around and read various entries that might seem appealing. This is an intellectual's Dear Abby and Cohen's perceptions will stick with you, and even might make you a better person in the long run. Best of all, these are the kinds of sticky situations which we all find ourselves in on a regular basis. Cohen gives us food for thought and then some.
November 28, 2024
Part of the reason this book took me more than a year to finish is that I was enjoying it very, very much and did not want to get to the end of it.
The book covered a wide range of topics most of which I found relevant, interesting, and engaging. I enjoyed taking some of the questions from the book and discussing them with my family to get their take on the topics and on the author's response. I did not always agree with the author but I could understand his rationale and thoughts behind his responses.
The book covered a wide range of topics most of which I found relevant, interesting, and engaging. I enjoyed taking some of the questions from the book and discussing them with my family to get their take on the topics and on the author's response. I did not always agree with the author but I could understand his rationale and thoughts behind his responses.
October 9, 2017
I used to listen to his podcast and enjoy laughing at the expense of others or at least think, “What would I do in a situation like that?” Reading letter after letter just got irritating and I’m not sure if it’s because the author starts to sound like a know-it-all who is never wrong, even if he is or if it’s because, well, no I think it has to do with the author alone. Just to mansplaining for me.
August 31, 2019
I had never heard of the author or his column before I stumbled upon this book at my local library. I have always liked advice columns so I picked it up. I found his perspective to be interesting. He approaches the questions from a philosophical point of view to determine what is the right thing to do. He does a fine job of explaining how he comes up with his answers.
August 1, 2023
An interesting collections of essays that detail potential ethical dilemmas in business. An enjoyable read but some issues are already out of date in a fast changing world. Worth a read, but not a strong recommendation.
February 8, 2023
A practical guide to everyday musings of what is right or wrong
It can serve a practical guide for learning how to gauge the right and/or wrong things of everyday life. Good read!
It can serve a practical guide for learning how to gauge the right and/or wrong things of everyday life. Good read!
January 20, 2013
When I was in college, I wanted to take a course in Ethics, and was surprised to find that my University (USC) didn't offer one. It's always been a subject of interest to me, so when I saw this book on display at my library I grabbed it. I had never heard of the column "The Ethicist", not being a New Yorker/East Coaster, but applying ethics to everyday situations sounded like an interesting idea. "Dear Abby" with an ethical slant. It actually reminded me of Isabel Dalhousie's "Journal of Applied Ethics."
Anyway, it was an interesting book, written with humor, and though I didn't always agree, I found most of the author's arguments for his decisions made sense. With one exception. One writer, a computer technician, had found pornographic images on his boss's computer, and some of it appeared to include images of children. He wondered if he should call the police, but was worried for his job. Cohen's advice was to do nothing, because, although we must always protect children, if it came out that this man had child pornography on his computer, it might ruin his life. He could lose his standing in the community. He might have to go to jail, and jail terms for those who look at illegal pornography are so draconian. Besides, men who look at child pornography rarely act on those impulses. Better to just pretend this never happened. Say what?!!? It sounded like something written by officials of the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church - way more concerned about how to protect the adult perpetrator at the expense of the child victim. Cohen of course took a lot of flak for this particular column, and reprinted some of those angry responses in the book. But he maintains that his "sources" (who remained unnamed - are they members of the Man/Boy Love organization or what?)assured him that men who look at child porn usually only "look", they don't act. Following that logic, men who look at heterosexual porn, or homosexual porn, or whatever, also only "look." I don't buy it. Perhaps, as Cohen argues in the book, someone else had downloaded those materials onto the boss's computer, perhaps there's an innocent, or at least logical and legal explanation. If so, when the police were notified, the boss would have an opportunity to explain - he wouldn't necessarily go to jail. If I was that technician, I couldn't live with myself if I just did nothing. It was decidedly NOT ethical to do nothing.
Anyway, it was an interesting book, written with humor, and though I didn't always agree, I found most of the author's arguments for his decisions made sense. With one exception. One writer, a computer technician, had found pornographic images on his boss's computer, and some of it appeared to include images of children. He wondered if he should call the police, but was worried for his job. Cohen's advice was to do nothing, because, although we must always protect children, if it came out that this man had child pornography on his computer, it might ruin his life. He could lose his standing in the community. He might have to go to jail, and jail terms for those who look at illegal pornography are so draconian. Besides, men who look at child pornography rarely act on those impulses. Better to just pretend this never happened. Say what?!!? It sounded like something written by officials of the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church - way more concerned about how to protect the adult perpetrator at the expense of the child victim. Cohen of course took a lot of flak for this particular column, and reprinted some of those angry responses in the book. But he maintains that his "sources" (who remained unnamed - are they members of the Man/Boy Love organization or what?)assured him that men who look at child porn usually only "look", they don't act. Following that logic, men who look at heterosexual porn, or homosexual porn, or whatever, also only "look." I don't buy it. Perhaps, as Cohen argues in the book, someone else had downloaded those materials onto the boss's computer, perhaps there's an innocent, or at least logical and legal explanation. If so, when the police were notified, the boss would have an opportunity to explain - he wouldn't necessarily go to jail. If I was that technician, I couldn't live with myself if I just did nothing. It was decidedly NOT ethical to do nothing.
June 28, 2013
collection of ethics advice columns from NYT magazine. I don't see that paper regularly and hadn't heard of this guy, so all new to me. Quite funny [apparently he used to write for Letterman]. Deals with mundane issues for the most part, and by his own admission he's not a professional philosopher or rabbi or what have you, just a regular thoughtful guy giving his take on the various dilemmas people face.
I mostly agreed with him (e.g., school board member is not obligated to send her kids to public schools -- living in DC I've been exposed to that issue forever -- Jimmy Carter good, Clinton and Obama bad for sending daughters to Sidwell Friends, etc. etc.), but understandably not always. For instance, I don't agree that looking at a salary list for your company (that you came across inadvertently) is ok ("admirable" in his terms, b/c transparency is good and keeping salaries private is just to protect the Boss Man). but he always gives a good account of the basis for his conclusions, considers alternatives, etc.
A particularly interesting feature of the book, applied to maybe half of the Q & A's, is his "update" in which he discusses either what the original writer did about the situation and with what consequence, and/or discusses the feedback he got on his response.
If books were Facebook, I'd give many "like"'s to his point (p. 196) that it can be gratifying to turn a nasty interaction with a critic into a civil one just by setting a gracious tone yourself. He cites Proverbs for "a soft answer turneth away wrath". Doesn't always work of course -- I'm still waiting for a response from the guy who emailed me to cancel his subscription to an internet psychotherapy panel I was on circa 2000 -- he wrote "take me off your f...ing list!", and I replied "thank you for your constructive, closely reasoned feedback" but got no further dialogue going. Maybe he thought I was sarcastic -- always hard to tell tone from email.
In any case, fun, quick read about interesting, concrete ethical issues.
I mostly agreed with him (e.g., school board member is not obligated to send her kids to public schools -- living in DC I've been exposed to that issue forever -- Jimmy Carter good, Clinton and Obama bad for sending daughters to Sidwell Friends, etc. etc.), but understandably not always. For instance, I don't agree that looking at a salary list for your company (that you came across inadvertently) is ok ("admirable" in his terms, b/c transparency is good and keeping salaries private is just to protect the Boss Man). but he always gives a good account of the basis for his conclusions, considers alternatives, etc.
A particularly interesting feature of the book, applied to maybe half of the Q & A's, is his "update" in which he discusses either what the original writer did about the situation and with what consequence, and/or discusses the feedback he got on his response.
If books were Facebook, I'd give many "like"'s to his point (p. 196) that it can be gratifying to turn a nasty interaction with a critic into a civil one just by setting a gracious tone yourself. He cites Proverbs for "a soft answer turneth away wrath". Doesn't always work of course -- I'm still waiting for a response from the guy who emailed me to cancel his subscription to an internet psychotherapy panel I was on circa 2000 -- he wrote "take me off your f...ing list!", and I replied "thank you for your constructive, closely reasoned feedback" but got no further dialogue going. Maybe he thought I was sarcastic -- always hard to tell tone from email.
In any case, fun, quick read about interesting, concrete ethical issues.
November 17, 2012
When I read Randy Cohen's first book, I didn't even realize there was such as thing as an Ethicist column in the New York Times. I found the book refreshing, interesting and entertaining.
However, I found this book, while interesting and, at times, entertaining, to be less than refreshing. In fact, many of the letters and answers are from his old columns back in the early part of the century. I don't know if I would be so harsh as to call it a "rehash" of old writing but it certainly wasn't new or fresh.
What may have been new and fresh are the essays that begin each chapter. Yet, even here, some of the references lack a certain modernity or contemporary feel.
Randy Cohen seems accomplished enough not to need to push out another book just to make a few bucks but I can't help but think that is exactly the motivation when I read books like this.
It's a good book and wll written which is why I gave it four stars. It is not a great book with tons of original or even contemporary insight which is why I left the fifth star off.
Bottom line: read it.
However, I found this book, while interesting and, at times, entertaining, to be less than refreshing. In fact, many of the letters and answers are from his old columns back in the early part of the century. I don't know if I would be so harsh as to call it a "rehash" of old writing but it certainly wasn't new or fresh.
What may have been new and fresh are the essays that begin each chapter. Yet, even here, some of the references lack a certain modernity or contemporary feel.
Randy Cohen seems accomplished enough not to need to push out another book just to make a few bucks but I can't help but think that is exactly the motivation when I read books like this.
It's a good book and wll written which is why I gave it four stars. It is not a great book with tons of original or even contemporary insight which is why I left the fifth star off.
Bottom line: read it.
December 27, 2014
From the title I was expecting something a bit more like a discussion of overarching principles of ethics, which is not really the subject of this book. Instead, it is a compilation of the author's New York Times column writings, a collection of published opinions about the ethics of various questions, some 'large' societal questions which he uses to structure each chapter, and some specific questions written in by the public. Each of his answers to public queries are very short, because of the constraints of his newspaper column, although he does provide follow-up information on some occasions. Because of the structure, however, this book covers breadth rather than depth, and, as he states up front, serves best as a springboard for individuals to discuss the ideas of ethics with each other, and as insight into his moral reasoning. I didn't always agree with his judgments, and I found his humorous tone sometimes distracting, but these are minor quibbles. Instead this simply gets a middle-of-the-road rating from me by virtue of being interesting but uninspiring.
February 19, 2016
I love books that make me think and this one did so, in spades. My sole beef is that in attempts to be funny, the writer sometimes makes comments or takes positions that are absurd. He knows this and does so generally to make a point. And he was a comedy writer for Letterman, so it is hard for a tiger to change his stripes. But it detracts from many of the sound points that he otherwise is trying to make when he makes a snide or sarcastic comment that just seems out of place. It is a relatively minor annoyance, but it is one that was repeated SO often in this book, that I could not give it 5 stars. The book is broken down into major subsections that deal with different areas of controversy.
One interesting point he made a couple of times that I had never considered regarding ethics: you can think about whatever you want; it does not become an issue of ethics until it involves an action that affects other people.
One interesting point he made a couple of times that I had never considered regarding ethics: you can think about whatever you want; it does not become an issue of ethics until it involves an action that affects other people.
July 17, 2015
Not really a book about ethics, more just one man's opinion on how to live your life in various situations. To me, for someone to claim wisdom on ethics requires some sort of specialized knowledge, a background that warrants credibility. Cohen displays none of that. In the epilogue he compares himself to Ann Landers - then adds "I wish." I, for one, didn't so wish. Ann Landers was many things to many people, and she was extremely talented, but she was not an "Ethicist." Cohen's viewpoints on differing matters often run in direct conflict to one another, seem only half thought out, and don't stand up to the most basic scrutiny. Further, despite his prior employment history and some reviews to the contrary, I didn't find him funny. (snarky isn't funny.) I suppose "Be Good" is good for passing some time, like any old newspaper advice column. Just don't expect more.
July 23, 2013
Easy-to-read ethical questions and answers from NYT columnist Randy Cohen. Do I have to pay a dead relative's debts? Does a doctor have to tell a juvenile patient his diagnosis? Should I turn in a vendor who takes cash payments to avoid taxes? And lots more. Nice format - most stories fit easily onto a single page, so you can keep moving along. He begins with an interesting assertion - that people know instantly what they should do, but spend their time thinking up a justification for it that they can enunciate if asked. Cohen cuts through the mire and gets to the fundamentals, which makes his answers look self-evident. Most of us need to hear/read the thought process to get there on our own.
January 12, 2013
I am a sucker for the sort of Agony Aunt and advice columns where people write and debate the relative merits of something they did and why the writer should tell them it was okay. This book was a collection of Ethicist columns previously published in New York Times Magazine. Some interesting questions and I really like the ones that had follow up information included about what the individual actually did or the outcome of the situation. I didn’t enjoy Cohen’s intros to each chapter as much. They sort of rambled on as op-ed sort of pieces and sometimes didn’t seem to tie in well with the chapter itself. Overall – a fun read.
February 11, 2013
A collection of letters and responses from an advice columnist, this book was a palatable, quick read. It was more of a study into how to answer questions than a deep, yet punchy, philosophical rumination on ethics (which I had expected and hoped for). However, as Cohen often provided much different advice than I would have, the book did provoke me to think about what it means to be ethical, how we define acceptable and proper behavior on the broadest human level, and how advice may change based on the medium of communication--for how does one make suggestions that are relevant to an anonymous letter-writer in an unknown place?
January 3, 2013
A guy with a Master's Degree in music and a career as a comedy writer (for Dave Letterman and Rosie O'Donnell) lands a syndicated column discussing the ethics of everyday life.....
This book is a compilation of his favorite questions/answers book-ended with some padded pontification on whatever topic the chapter is focused on--Sex, Work, Politics etc.
The questions are thought provoking--his answers seem well thought out but misguided much of the time. The misguided part is part of the schtick. The questions can be used as a springboard for your own ruminations/discussions with friends and family.
This book is a compilation of his favorite questions/answers book-ended with some padded pontification on whatever topic the chapter is focused on--Sex, Work, Politics etc.
The questions are thought provoking--his answers seem well thought out but misguided much of the time. The misguided part is part of the schtick. The questions can be used as a springboard for your own ruminations/discussions with friends and family.
March 1, 2013
Loved the premise of this book - that an ordinary person (like Randy Cohen) can tackle all sorts of questions life poses - especially the lowly, commonplace circumstances people find themselves in. In doing so, he gives you a sense that it is indeed important to live an examined life. One may also get the feeling that every decision made by an individual does have effects on oneself and others. His writing style is hilarious, as are some of the questions (my favorite one began: I'm a better driver slightly inebriated than my wife is sober...). I especially liked his longer pieces in the beginnings of chapters. There was a lot to think about in reading this book. Enjoy!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews