The book is divided into six sections, each on a distinct topic. The first topic is the nature of moral goodness (and, in particular, of the language we use to talk about moral goodness), and it includes both cognitivist and noncognitivist accounts. Indeed, the section centers around the debate between cognitivists and noncognitivists. And the selections included are all from heavy hitters: Moore, Firth, Ross, and Foot defend cognitivism (Foot and Ross by criticizing the forms of noncognitivism on display here), while Ayer, Hare, and Gibbard defend noncognitivism. The second topic is theories about what constitutes a good human life, and it includes readings on the three major views here--hedonism, desire-satisfaction theories, and objectivism. The topic of the third section is virtue ethics, and it includes classic work by Anscombe, Foot, and MacIntyre. The fourth is moral realism vs. moral anti-realism. This section begins with J. L. Mackie's classic defense of an error-theoretic account of morality, and it includes a non-naturalist realist response from John McDowell and a noncognitivist response from Simon Blackburn. It ends with Nicholas Sturgeon's defense of a naturalist form of realism in his "Moral Explanations," though, for whatever reason, the editors didn't include the work of Gilbert Harman's to which Sturgeon is explicitly responding in this paper. (Still, Sturgeon probably explains Harman's points well enough for this paper to be understandable even if one hasn't already read Harman.) The fifth topic is normative ethics, and this section includes readings on various types of consequentialism (e.g. Moore's ideal utilitarianism and Smart's act utilitarianism), on Ross's deontological theory, and a selection from Robert Adams on the divine command theory. Finally, there is a section on the meaning of life.

But, honestly, I cannot understand what the unifying theme of this anthology is. It seems there isn't one. As this summary should reveal, the emphasis here isn't on contemporary discussions. For the readings come from much of the twentieth-century literature. Nor is the emphasis on meta-ethics as opposed to normative ethics, as this includes sections on virtue ethics. The authors describe it as a general anthology introducing ethical thinking in twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy, and that seems to be as good a description as any I can think of.

I suppose the only real problem with having such a broad subject matter if that the coverage of particular issues is not as comprehensive as it could be. There are thirty-four readings here, and they are intended to cover most of the major issues in contemporary meta-ethics and normative ethics as well as providing some examples of important early twentieth-century discussions of the same issues. I guess I really don't see how thirty-four readings can cover that much material and cover it well. Still, this isn't a problem for the whole of the anthology. The sections on the nature of goodness and on theories of what constitutes a good human life are pretty comprehensive, but the sections on virtue ethics, on moral realism vs. anti-realism, and on wider issues in normative ethics aren't. (The book also includes a section on the meaning of life. I really can't say much about the extent of its coverage, since I know next-to-nothing about this topic.)

That said, this is a good anthology. All of the selections are well-chosen, and many of them are contemporary classics. And many of these papers aren't ones that are easily found in other anthologies. The selections from Hare, Foot, and Gibbard on noncognitivism; from Firth on the ideal observer theory; from Frankena on obligation and motivation; from Adams on the divine command theory; and Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy." These are all crucial works, and they're rarely anthologized. Furthermore, if you're looking for an anthology to give you a taste of the range of thought in twentieth-century moral philosophy, this is a good place to go. For you'll find something in this anthology about pretty much every topic that has been discussed at length.

I'd recommend this anthology for anyone interested in contemporary meta-ethics, though, as I said, it isn't as comprehensive with respect to particular issues as some other anthologies. The authors intend it to be useful as an introduction to these areas. It might be useful as such an introduction--but only to those with significant philosophical sophistication or those who are going to be reading these selections in conjunction with either attending a series of lectures on these issues or reading a good introductory text on these issues. Many of the papers are pretty advanced, and it's not clear to me how helpful they would be to people coming to these issues for the first time.