What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethical Imagination
In the 2006 CBC Massey Lectures -- the bestselling and most eagerly anticipated lecture series of the year -- renowned ethicist and McGill University professor Margaret Somerville tackles some of the most contentious issues of our times, and proposes a brilliant new kind of ethical language and thought to help us navigate them.
In this timely, topical, and cogently argued book, Somerville asks: What does it mean to be human today, when mind-altering scientific breakthroughs are challenging our fundamental ideas of ourselves, how we relate to others and the world around us, and how we find meaning in life?
Some of the controversial topics Somerville touches upon are our growing acceptance of new reproductive technologies, and our conundrums over the genetic modification of plants and animals. She eloquently proposes that it is only through our willingness to undertake a journey of the human imagination -- by heeding our stories, myths, and moral intuition -- that we can truly see, understand, speak about, and relate to the world around us, and thereby develop an ethics to guide us.
In this timely, topical, and cogently argued book, Somerville asks: What does it mean to be human today, when mind-altering scientific breakthroughs are challenging our fundamental ideas of ourselves, how we relate to others and the world around us, and how we find meaning in life?
Some of the controversial topics Somerville touches upon are our growing acceptance of new reproductive technologies, and our conundrums over the genetic modification of plants and animals. She eloquently proposes that it is only through our willingness to undertake a journey of the human imagination -- by heeding our stories, myths, and moral intuition -- that we can truly see, understand, speak about, and relate to the world around us, and thereby develop an ethics to guide us.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
280 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
10 people are currently reading
126 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 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 2, 2016
It's been quite a while since I read this book. I heard about it and decided to read it after a lecture Dr Somerville gave at my/her university on physician-assisted suicide. She had a conservative view, which surprised me, and a lot of things she said were verbalizations of things I felt/believed in a vague sense. It affected me quite profoundly, as I had not really had an interest in bioethics before then.
The Ethical Imagination makes a lot of interesting points. Some that have stuck with me, a year later, are:
a) Ethics vs the ethics of doing ethics - what do ethicists decide to focus on?
b) Our metaphors shaping our ethical judgments - metaphors are not impotent
c) The importance of traditions and rituals for communal wellbeing
d) The importance of lineage for identity, and consequently mental wellbeing
e) Hesitation - erring on the side of caution
f) How modern technology has the potential to completely overturn almost all of our traditional identity structures - family as blood, child-centred marriage, death as the horizon of human endeavour, etc
g) The importance of wording in bills - how nuanced/careful one must be
h) How will current decisions on major bioethical issues affect us in generations to come? - ethics over time
i) The importance of wording and how it shapes identity in ethics:
- are life-extending machines "part" of us (like the legs we are born with) or are they external and assistive (like Siri)? That profoundly affects whether it is ethical to unplug someone.
- physician-assisted suicide as "white coating" an unethical decision - physicians are seen as trustworthy, using that to make it seem like it is not accomplice to self-murder
j) The secular sacred - how can we have a sacred that is not based off of religion, the traditional giver of sacredness?
- a shared ethics: importance of community and agreement in ethics
- importance of order: disturb it at your own risk
- the meaning of life
i) The sanctity of life - being human beyond existing, being human in terms of community, being human in terms of traditions, and being human in terms of where you come from
Some other reviewers said it was "morally inflexible". I don't think that is a fair criticism. Somerville merely values harmony and social order over comfort. She associates wellbeing with the former. Her entire book is an argument for this. To simply look at her conclusions and deny her the benefit of understanding where she is coming from is unfair and unscholarly.
I enjoyed this book as a piece of work by someone who genuinely cares about life as sacred. Though one may disagree with her conclusions, she elegantly sums up the intuitions of many of us (the "silent majority", as Trumpians would say). I had never heard such a cogent defence of conservative values. And that, too, without delving too deep into philosophy and natural law. I think, as someone who espouses many of them, it has given me strength to verbalize what I was afraid to before, for fear of seeming "not progressive enough". It is empowering to know that traditional values and beliefs are not backward, but can be defended.
The Ethical Imagination makes a lot of interesting points. Some that have stuck with me, a year later, are:
a) Ethics vs the ethics of doing ethics - what do ethicists decide to focus on?
b) Our metaphors shaping our ethical judgments - metaphors are not impotent
c) The importance of traditions and rituals for communal wellbeing
d) The importance of lineage for identity, and consequently mental wellbeing
e) Hesitation - erring on the side of caution
f) How modern technology has the potential to completely overturn almost all of our traditional identity structures - family as blood, child-centred marriage, death as the horizon of human endeavour, etc
g) The importance of wording in bills - how nuanced/careful one must be
h) How will current decisions on major bioethical issues affect us in generations to come? - ethics over time
i) The importance of wording and how it shapes identity in ethics:
- are life-extending machines "part" of us (like the legs we are born with) or are they external and assistive (like Siri)? That profoundly affects whether it is ethical to unplug someone.
- physician-assisted suicide as "white coating" an unethical decision - physicians are seen as trustworthy, using that to make it seem like it is not accomplice to self-murder
j) The secular sacred - how can we have a sacred that is not based off of religion, the traditional giver of sacredness?
- a shared ethics: importance of community and agreement in ethics
- importance of order: disturb it at your own risk
- the meaning of life
i) The sanctity of life - being human beyond existing, being human in terms of community, being human in terms of traditions, and being human in terms of where you come from
Some other reviewers said it was "morally inflexible". I don't think that is a fair criticism. Somerville merely values harmony and social order over comfort. She associates wellbeing with the former. Her entire book is an argument for this. To simply look at her conclusions and deny her the benefit of understanding where she is coming from is unfair and unscholarly.
I enjoyed this book as a piece of work by someone who genuinely cares about life as sacred. Though one may disagree with her conclusions, she elegantly sums up the intuitions of many of us (the "silent majority", as Trumpians would say). I had never heard such a cogent defence of conservative values. And that, too, without delving too deep into philosophy and natural law. I think, as someone who espouses many of them, it has given me strength to verbalize what I was afraid to before, for fear of seeming "not progressive enough". It is empowering to know that traditional values and beliefs are not backward, but can be defended.
July 10, 2020
OK, this will be a quickly written note just to justify my rating. +4 for the book as a whole, then -2 for the anti-abortion and anti-trans undertones and the denial of equal rights for queer people.
This book raises some thought-provoking points. Some that stuck with me:
-The limits of focusing solely on human rights - that rights are legal and that any human rights are declarative rather than constitutive
-Human dignity can be framed internally or externally. So when we're talking about respecting human dignity, we may be understanding it 2 different ways based no whether we see dignity to be intrinsic to having a life versus dependent on being able to do certain things
-The difficulty with beginning ethics at the point of disagreement rather than the shared values
-We must look at the reasons behind the decision, not just the decision itself. Two people may come to a shared conclusion on a topic (e.g. abortion should be legalized) but based off of two very different sets of principles and values (e.g. for reproductive justice versus for eugenics - that's an extreme example, but anyway)
-Different sets of ethics work in different contexts - relational versus government versus corporation - and problems are now arising as we attempt to apply one frame of ethics to a different context
-Whether there are values such as compassion and courage that can be incorporated into a shared ethic
AND I struggled significantly with this book. Starting with the point that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because it would harm future children who wouldn't get to know their genetic lineage (if that seems like a large number of assumptions and leaps in logic were made, then I feel I've represented her argument well).
Her drive to universalize definitely has significant problems. She recognizes this, and it still isn't addressed enough.
Relatedly, the focus on "natural." Nothing in our world is natural. Every single "natural" landscape, animal, plant, and human has been altered by humanity. The concept of natural itself is problematic because it implies there are pure and true forms of being, which therefore implies there are impure and wrong ways of being. It also suggests that natural is necessarily better. For instance, the argument that children need to know their "natural" parents is premised on the idea that genetically-determined parenthood is natural parenthood, that genetic parenthood is more "true" than gestational/ceremonial/legal/etc. parenthood, and that not knowing the genetic parents creates harm while knowing them avoids harm.
But overall, I find Somerville's ideas of significant merit and usefulness. My issue lies with where she goes from there.
Somerville argues that we need to look at the ideas and principles behind ethical decisions. But we equally need to look at the ethical decisions themselves.
And so back to the point that first raised alarms for me while reading: No matter how sound ethical theory (your ideas and principles) may be, if that theory leads to you to denying people the ability to participate in a ceremony that we as a culture view as being the definitive way to declare one's love and commitment to each other (your decision) - then you've failed. Ethical imaginations must be tied to ethical practices. This book was great at formulating the former but stopped far short at achieving the latter.
This book raises some thought-provoking points. Some that stuck with me:
-The limits of focusing solely on human rights - that rights are legal and that any human rights are declarative rather than constitutive
-Human dignity can be framed internally or externally. So when we're talking about respecting human dignity, we may be understanding it 2 different ways based no whether we see dignity to be intrinsic to having a life versus dependent on being able to do certain things
-The difficulty with beginning ethics at the point of disagreement rather than the shared values
-We must look at the reasons behind the decision, not just the decision itself. Two people may come to a shared conclusion on a topic (e.g. abortion should be legalized) but based off of two very different sets of principles and values (e.g. for reproductive justice versus for eugenics - that's an extreme example, but anyway)
-Different sets of ethics work in different contexts - relational versus government versus corporation - and problems are now arising as we attempt to apply one frame of ethics to a different context
-Whether there are values such as compassion and courage that can be incorporated into a shared ethic
AND I struggled significantly with this book. Starting with the point that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because it would harm future children who wouldn't get to know their genetic lineage (if that seems like a large number of assumptions and leaps in logic were made, then I feel I've represented her argument well).
Her drive to universalize definitely has significant problems. She recognizes this, and it still isn't addressed enough.
Relatedly, the focus on "natural." Nothing in our world is natural. Every single "natural" landscape, animal, plant, and human has been altered by humanity. The concept of natural itself is problematic because it implies there are pure and true forms of being, which therefore implies there are impure and wrong ways of being. It also suggests that natural is necessarily better. For instance, the argument that children need to know their "natural" parents is premised on the idea that genetically-determined parenthood is natural parenthood, that genetic parenthood is more "true" than gestational/ceremonial/legal/etc. parenthood, and that not knowing the genetic parents creates harm while knowing them avoids harm.
But overall, I find Somerville's ideas of significant merit and usefulness. My issue lies with where she goes from there.
Somerville argues that we need to look at the ideas and principles behind ethical decisions. But we equally need to look at the ethical decisions themselves.
And so back to the point that first raised alarms for me while reading: No matter how sound ethical theory (your ideas and principles) may be, if that theory leads to you to denying people the ability to participate in a ceremony that we as a culture view as being the definitive way to declare one's love and commitment to each other (your decision) - then you've failed. Ethical imaginations must be tied to ethical practices. This book was great at formulating the former but stopped far short at achieving the latter.
August 16, 2015
Margaret Somerville aims to introduce a moral language that can be common across cultures which can be used to understand and facility a broad spectrum of issues. From that perspective, I feel that the book is grossly unsuccessful. Her substitution of the "ethical imagination" in place of a moral language does not address any of the issues she suggests because she has framed it not as a language which crosses barriers but as a morality constrained by her own cultural milieu. Even after less than a decade, her standpoint has not aged well and her position is becoming increasingly out-of-date even within her own culture.
August 19, 2022
Margaret Somerville’s, “The Ethical Imagination� has to be the most controversial Massey Lecture I have heard. Given her proposal to create a shared ethics, this is no surprise. The 2006 lectures dig into the changing nature of humanity as it becomes increasingly technocratic; suggesting that humans need a shared set of ethics in order to survive. Acknowledging the impossibility of a utopian ideal, she suggests instead that only some values and ethics need be shared.
Where Somerville becomes controversial is in her third and fourth lectures where she argues for a greater definition of the rights of the child - to include the right to know both biological parents - saying that Gay marriage, and implying that single parenthood are therefore unethical. There was no deeper analysis of the tradition and social importance of marriage, and her reasonings for the rights of the child seem unrealistic, and frankly, unnecessary. Many children are raised by adoptive parents, without knowing their biological parentage, and technology makes biological profiles and histories available without ever meeting the parent.
The second slippery slope is with regards to the rights of the embryo. As she points out, the rights of the embryo for use in research and experimentation, are strictly upheld, in order to protect the integrity of ‘the human�. Given the current situation in the US regarding abortion rights, this grey area is one that should be further clarified so that women continue to maintain rights over their own bodies.
Overall, Somerville’s arguments are clear, though not always well supported. A more developed path forward to creating a shared ethics would have made this lecture more profound.
Where Somerville becomes controversial is in her third and fourth lectures where she argues for a greater definition of the rights of the child - to include the right to know both biological parents - saying that Gay marriage, and implying that single parenthood are therefore unethical. There was no deeper analysis of the tradition and social importance of marriage, and her reasonings for the rights of the child seem unrealistic, and frankly, unnecessary. Many children are raised by adoptive parents, without knowing their biological parentage, and technology makes biological profiles and histories available without ever meeting the parent.
The second slippery slope is with regards to the rights of the embryo. As she points out, the rights of the embryo for use in research and experimentation, are strictly upheld, in order to protect the integrity of ‘the human�. Given the current situation in the US regarding abortion rights, this grey area is one that should be further clarified so that women continue to maintain rights over their own bodies.
Overall, Somerville’s arguments are clear, though not always well supported. A more developed path forward to creating a shared ethics would have made this lecture more profound.
March 28, 2018
This book was pretty disappointing. She claims at the outset that we need to develop a "shared ethics" that gets bridges the gap between different views, but across the whole book she only makes a few banal suggestions about a method to build that bridge. A couple of key concepts are worth exploring further--particularly her idea that the presumption should be to favour the natural or nature, rather than what is impossible in nature. This is her conservative position with respect to biotechnology, for instance.
What really annoyed me was that too often she would make statements beginning "I believe..." or "we should ..." with little or no justification. This struck me as a misuse of her position of authority. Just because she was giving a Massey lecture, doesn't mean she is automatically irrefutable as an authority. Moreover, if she wants me (and others?) to go along with her, she owes it to us to provide a meaningful justification--not that I say "meaningful" rather than "rational" because I recognize that, particularly in this discussion, it is important to move past the idea of reason to include emotion and, especially in her case, the imagination.
In fact, she doesn't require much of the imagination. I would say that this book is mistitled, probably ought to have been The Ethical Meandering.
What really annoyed me was that too often she would make statements beginning "I believe..." or "we should ..." with little or no justification. This struck me as a misuse of her position of authority. Just because she was giving a Massey lecture, doesn't mean she is automatically irrefutable as an authority. Moreover, if she wants me (and others?) to go along with her, she owes it to us to provide a meaningful justification--not that I say "meaningful" rather than "rational" because I recognize that, particularly in this discussion, it is important to move past the idea of reason to include emotion and, especially in her case, the imagination.
In fact, she doesn't require much of the imagination. I would say that this book is mistitled, probably ought to have been The Ethical Meandering.
Read
October 5, 2018Ethics in modern world where we are likely to go from homo sapiens to techno sapiens. That is
with so much scientific change in genetics, neurology (brain stuff) and technical enhancements for our senses and physical capacity we have to consider the world in light of such developments
Morality which considers social interaction leads to the rule that we all want to live in a world we all want to live in.
Consider transhumanists, who take into account the world that is developing with new
things such as cloning, surrogacy, two men having children or two women having children.
Also the way technology changes the way humans interact with the world.
Transhumanism the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.
with so much scientific change in genetics, neurology (brain stuff) and technical enhancements for our senses and physical capacity we have to consider the world in light of such developments
Morality which considers social interaction leads to the rule that we all want to live in a world we all want to live in.
Consider transhumanists, who take into account the world that is developing with new
things such as cloning, surrogacy, two men having children or two women having children.
Also the way technology changes the way humans interact with the world.
Transhumanism the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.
December 6, 2023
An amazing, insightful and thoughtful expose of the relevance of ethics and imagination - and how they might intersect in ways that meaningfully inform our personal lives and societies at large.
March 14, 2014
The Imagination of a Goldfish
Margaret Somerville's ethical maturity is no better than the "brightest" minds of the Middle Ages. She has inherent concerns with moral flexibility. According to Margaret, anything that pricks our "moral intuitions" should be closely scrutinised for any potential harms. So, to Margaret, ESCR, abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide etc. should be analysed because they are new concepts, and if they alert our primal moral instincts, there is probably something wrong with them. Taking a virtually exclusive Natural Law view of morality, she opposes genetic manipulation. Funnily enough, no opprobrious comments are made against vaccines or surgery.
Tackling same-sex marriage, she asserts that the primary purpose of marriage is not the happiness of the couple, but to create an "ideal" environment to raise children. This may have been the purpose of marriage two centuries ago, but it certainly isn't the case now. Even if the purpose of marriage remained static, studies have shown that gays and lesbians can be as good, if not better, parents than heterosexual couples.
(Researchers Nanette Gartrell and Henry Bos in the journal Pediatrics)
Moreover, homosexual couples are already adopting and raising children. Somerville does not advance a single reason towards why allowing them to marry would make things worse for the children. This is bigotry veiled in false compassion. She also supports a offensive and unjust "civil union" arrangement, which does nothing more than put the LGBT community into second-class citizenship.
Opposing abortion, she claims to respect all life. But by doing so, she places embryos on a pedestal above women. No one has the right to force another human to donate blood, let alone an organ, to sustain life. Once again, her arguments have been shipwrecked before they have left the harbour.
Margaret Somerville's ethical maturity is no better than the "brightest" minds of the Middle Ages. She has inherent concerns with moral flexibility. According to Margaret, anything that pricks our "moral intuitions" should be closely scrutinised for any potential harms. So, to Margaret, ESCR, abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide etc. should be analysed because they are new concepts, and if they alert our primal moral instincts, there is probably something wrong with them. Taking a virtually exclusive Natural Law view of morality, she opposes genetic manipulation. Funnily enough, no opprobrious comments are made against vaccines or surgery.
Tackling same-sex marriage, she asserts that the primary purpose of marriage is not the happiness of the couple, but to create an "ideal" environment to raise children. This may have been the purpose of marriage two centuries ago, but it certainly isn't the case now. Even if the purpose of marriage remained static, studies have shown that gays and lesbians can be as good, if not better, parents than heterosexual couples.
(Researchers Nanette Gartrell and Henry Bos in the journal Pediatrics)
Moreover, homosexual couples are already adopting and raising children. Somerville does not advance a single reason towards why allowing them to marry would make things worse for the children. This is bigotry veiled in false compassion. She also supports a offensive and unjust "civil union" arrangement, which does nothing more than put the LGBT community into second-class citizenship.
Opposing abortion, she claims to respect all life. But by doing so, she places embryos on a pedestal above women. No one has the right to force another human to donate blood, let alone an organ, to sustain life. Once again, her arguments have been shipwrecked before they have left the harbour.
January 31, 2012
Excellent book, and makes many “common sense� observations and comes at the subject from many angles. Very refreshing and slightly scary !
When asked what is the most dangerous idea, at a discussion group, the answer given was “There is no difference between man, animal or robot� among other ideas, and this is what led me to read M Sommerville book on ethical imagination.
The book explores recent advances in medicine, the slide from homo sapiens to techno sapiens, and the various aspects to be considered.
On one issue she has drawn the wrath of homosexuals, as she wrote a paper on gay marriage, defending the weakest person, being the baby, who has a right to know not only it’s biological parents, but also to have bot sexes as parents. That is no doubt a biased summary, but give an insight.
Margeret Sommerville is the founding Director of the Faculty of Law‘s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
When asked what is the most dangerous idea, at a discussion group, the answer given was “There is no difference between man, animal or robot� among other ideas, and this is what led me to read M Sommerville book on ethical imagination.
The book explores recent advances in medicine, the slide from homo sapiens to techno sapiens, and the various aspects to be considered.
On one issue she has drawn the wrath of homosexuals, as she wrote a paper on gay marriage, defending the weakest person, being the baby, who has a right to know not only it’s biological parents, but also to have bot sexes as parents. That is no doubt a biased summary, but give an insight.
Margeret Sommerville is the founding Director of the Faculty of Law‘s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
December 15, 2010
This is quite possibly one of the best books I have ever read. Somerville talks mainly about "the natural" and the sanctity of human life/the essence of what it means to be human. The abilities we now have to alter our genetic makeup are SCARY, and I think it is so important we work to find a shared ethics, for the sake of the future of our planet.
July 29, 2010
A book that I took quite a while to read, and will probably go back to from time to time. She challenges us to think deeply about current issues especially in science and to become involved in the debate.
Liz
Liz
July 25, 2011
I was initially intrigued but the ethics of reproduction section is turning into a snore. Not sure I'll finish it.
November 12, 2011
My first book on ethics. It opened up a whole new world to me. Easy to read and well written.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.