Ethics for Amador

Savater says at the outset what the book isn’t. It’s not a manual, it contains no survey of moral theory, and it’ll teach a teacher very little. It’s a personal and subjective book, as personal as the relationship between a father and a son, and universal for exactly that reason.

This is a book I’d press on almost anyone. A father who respects his son enough to argue with him, and never lectures, is rarer on the page than it ought to be. The warmth in it moved me more than a philosophy text has any right to.

What it covers is the exercise of freedom, the acceptance of responsibility, why living alongside other people is a condition of living fully, the relationship between ethics and politics, and the legitimacy of wanting to enjoy yourself. It’s been in print since 1991, has been translated widely, and Spanish-speaking schools teach it. That’s unusual for a book that goes out of its way to refuse the textbook role.

What is the central argument of Ethics for Amador?

That ethics is the attempt to live on purpose. Deliberately and consciously, as opposed to by habit, by order, or by whim. Savater keeps returning to the difference between doing something because it was commanded, because it’s customary, and because you decided it, and he’s clear that only the third is a moral act.

The consequence is that a person following rules perfectly isn’t being ethical, they’re being obedient, and the two look identical from outside and are entirely different from inside. That’s a hard thing to say to a teenager and he says it anyway. I’d put that line on the wall of every school that confuses compliance with character. Obedience is easy to grade, so institutions reward it and call it virtue. Savater refuses to let a fifteen-year-old believe that, and I admire him for trusting a teenager with the harder idea. He also refuses to hand over rules. Some readers find that frustrating. It’s the point. The book is an invitation to reflect and not a recipe, and it says so on the first page.

What does Ethics for Amador say about freedom?

That freedom isn’t the ability to do anything you want, which is the version most teenagers arrive with, but the ability to choose among the options that exist, and that this ability is inseparable from responsibility.

You can’t choose your circumstances, your body, your family, or most of what happens to you. You can choose what you do about it, and a constrained choice is still yours.

He’s good on the difference between wanting something and it being good for you. That’s the practical version of the whole book. A great deal of the chapter on pleasure is about that distinction, and he’s careful not to land on asceticism. That would be the easy move. Enjoying yourself is legitimate. Confusing enjoyment with benefit is the error.

The pleasure chapter is my favorite part. Moralists who treat enjoyment as a character flaw tire me, and Savater dismantles that attitude without swinging to the opposite mistake. He treats a teenager’s appetite for fun as legitimate and still asks the adult question about whether it’s good for him.

Why does the letter form of Ethics for Amador matter?

A philosopher writing to his fifteen-year-old can’t hide behind vocabulary.

Every idea has to survive being said plainly to somebody who will stop reading if it becomes tedious and who has known him his whole life. There’s no possibility of impressing this reader, and no possibility of using a technical term to paper over a place where the thinking is thin.

That constraint produces prose that’s clear without being simplified. That’s far harder than it looks and is the reason schools have taught the book for over thirty years. Anyone writing to explain something to a non-specialist should study how it handles the reader: never talking down, never assuming ignorance, and never pretending the subject is easier than it is.

Every nonfiction writer should read this section twice. Too many authors write explanatory books to impress other experts, and the reader pays for it in fog. Savater writes for one person he loves and can’t bluff, and the clarity comes straight out of that.

He also uses examples the reader will have. Films, everyday situations, arguments about what is allowed at home. Citizen Kane appears. So does Robinson Crusoe. The philosophy arrives inside things a fifteen-year-old already has opinions about.

What does Ethics for Amador not do?

It’s one man’s positions and it doesn’t pretend otherwise. Savater is an avowed agnostic writing in the Enlightenment tradition, and a reader coming from a religious structure will find several chapters arguing against them without the book ever conceding that it’s doing so. Somebody handing this to a teenager should know that going in.

It also skips the history of moral philosophy completely, which he says at the outset. The result is a reader who can think about ethics and can’t place their own thinking against anybody else’s, and that gap has to be filled somewhere else.

The missing history is my one real complaint, and it’s a small one. A curious teenager finishing this will want to know who else wrestled with these questions, and the book doesn’t point the way. Pair it with a plain history of ethics and the gap closes.

And it’s a book of a particular time and place. The examples are Spanish and European and the political chapter is written against a 1991 backdrop. None of that damages the argument and it does date the furniture.

Verdict

A short introduction to ethics I’d rank with anything in any language, and a lesson in writing for a reader you respect. I’d hand it to a teenager tomorrow and to a working writer the day after. Read it for the argument if the subject interests you, and read it for the technique if you write explanatory nonfiction, because the constraint of the form is doing most of the work and the technique transfers to any subject.

Frequently Asked Questions