Michael Slote Book order

Focusing on the interaction between Chinese and Western philosophy, this expanded collection of essays builds on the author's lectures delivered in Taiwan. The work aims to deepen philosophical understanding rather than merely provide descriptions or interpretations. It explores diverse themes and perspectives, encouraging readers to engage with the complexities of both traditions and their potential dialogues.

The book explores the intersection of psychology and philosophy, emphasizing the advantages of the Chinese heart-mind concept over the Western mind. It critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of both philosophical traditions. Key discussions include the overlooked roles of empathy and emotion in speech acts, the relationship between justice and psychological insights, and a reevaluation of psychological egoism. The author argues that human instincts and aspirations transcend simple egoism and altruism, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of morality.

This book begins with a discussion of the human life cycle and then uses that discussion and other ideas to paint a general picture of what human lives are like. While the first part looks at human development and change, the second part of the book explores what all human lives are like. Philosophical ideas and methods are central to this book, although it is difficult to subcategorize it into any familiar subdiscipline of philosophy. It draws on modern concepts from psychology and social science in order to portray an image of human life and lives and to enable readers to easily understand the notion of human development in a very specific and directed way. Although cognitive development and the development of motor skills are two examples of forms of human development, this book homes in on a particular, and arguably more synoptic, way of seeing our development, which is in relation to and occurs within the human life cycle. This book is an enlightening read for a broad range of philosophy scholars, articulating and defending a view that is neither as pessimistic nor as optimistic about human life as previous views have been.

Rational choice theory has traditionally emphasized the pursuit of individual self-interest as the foundation of decision-making in philosophy, economics, and decision theory. This perspective raises questions about the implications of prioritizing personal gain over collective well-being, challenging readers to reconsider the motivations behind human behavior and the potential for alternative frameworks that incorporate altruism and social responsibility.

Focusing on care ethics, Michael Slote explores how fostering a more caring and open-minded educational environment can alleviate feelings of disappointment and resentment linked to perceived talent disparities. He critiques the shortcomings of an educational system that prioritizes blind democracy and absolute equality, arguing that it neglects the emotional and ethical dimensions of learning. By addressing previously overlooked questions, Slote offers a fresh perspective on the intersection of education and human values.

Argues that care ethics presents an important challenge to other ethical traditions and that a philosophically developed care ethics should offer its own view of the whole of morality. This book shows that the use of that notion allows care ethics to develop its own sentimentalist account of respect, autonomy, social justice, and deontology.

Annotation In this book, Michael Slote offers the first full-scale foundational account of virtue ethics to have appeared since the recent revival of interest in the topic. Slote advocates a particular form of such ethics for its intuitive and structural advantages over Kantianism, utilitarianism, and common-sense morality, and he argues that the problems of other views can be avoided and a contemporary plausible version of virtue ethics achieved only by abandoning specifically moral concepts for general aretaic notions like admirability and virtue. The book defends a distinctive, intuitive, and symmetric ethical principle according to which we should balance self-concern with concern for others, but it also concludes that there is, contrary to utilitarianism, no single basis for status as a virtue nor any simple relation between the virtues and human well-being