Ethics without Principles

by Jonathan Dancy

What is a moral principle, and what do moral principles tell us? What if all suggested principles were defeated by counter-examples? Would moral judgement still be possible? In this book Jonathan Dancy argues that the traditional link between morality and principles, or between being moral and having principles, is little more than a mistake. This claim, known as 'particularism', has recently been attracting a great deal of attention, and Dancy is one of its leading proponents.Ethics Without Principles is the definitive presentation of his position, and will be required reading for all moral philosophers.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

240 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been reading this book for weeks, and before that it has perched on one of my bookshelves un-attempted for years. This is a reflection of a fairly dry and deep read. Dancy can be an engaging and occasionally even amusing author, but this book is hard work and really aimed at the domain of the professional philosopher, not the keen dabbler like me. I can say that I have slowly read it all and got to the end, which does not sound so very much! Well, I learnt on the way, and picked up some things to consider in wider philosophy. I was also lost in parts, probably due to my own lack of concentration and wandering off to read other, easier things. The four stars reflect the things I did learn, and my appreciation there is a lot more here.

This is Dancy's book on particularism - in simple terms the view that we should make ethical decisions without recourse to principles, but judge each situation uniquely on that situation. Moral principles are pretty much a mistake according to Dancy. There is a lot more to it than that, but that's a reasonable summary. It's a view I find interesting and attractive. Sadly, it needs a lot more work on behalf to understand his arguments fully, work I'm probably not going to do.

If you are up to it, and like the sound of particularism - then give it a go!

2021 update

This is my second reading of this book. It is not the easiest of reads, but a few more years into studying philosophy I found it much easier than the first time. It contains Dancy's take on particularism - the view that we do not need moral principles. For me, I find it an attractive view. The book itself is mostly about reasons, and how reasons combine and effect each other - what is generally called Holism of reasons. In many ways this reads like a metaethical text, as it is mostly discussions around how we think about morals and not specific examples of morals themselves. A worthy read, but if you have no philosophical training, my suspicion is that a tough one.

[Daniel Muñoz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely important and nothing like what you'd expect, Dancy's book is a must-read for anyone interested in moral philosophy. I can't recommend it highly enough.

[Elc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for 'Moral Reasoning'. Very interesting. Normally, we think of morality as a principled matter. If it's the case that there is the principle 'I shouldn't lie,' then I'll be able to recognize any instance of lying I encounter as prohibited, based on that principle. But Dancy holds that morality doesn't need to be principled; in fact, it'd be better without. We just need to think about the reasons we have for acting in particular ways in certain situations. When we do that, we'll see that what is a reason in one case might be a reason 'on the other side' or no reason at all in other cases. For instance, that something is the telling of a lie will be a reason against telling the lie in one case, that something is the telling of a lie will be a reason for telling the lie in another case.

[Audrey Ledbetter · Rating 2 out of 5]

definitely worth reading, lots of fruitful food for thought on the nature of moral judgment but writing lacks clarity and arguments are rife with undefended assumptions

[Lauren Henry]

chalkboard, 02.05
referenced 02.10