compiled cmp

8/14/2019 Compiled CMP

1/29

Contemporary Moral Problems

Rocky L. Ho

6/7/2009

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.

~Page 1~


2/29

Dedication

To my parents: Ho Kam Ming, Elizabeth Lo

To my siblings: Michelle Ho, Evelyn Ho, Irene Ho

To my friends and fellow classmate.

~Page 2~


3/29

Preface

This is a compilation of discussions and book reviews, integrative questions,questions that serves as guide questions and help the readers to further

understand or polish their reading skills.

~Page 3~


4/29

Table Of Content

Dedication.2

Preface.3

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism..5

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience.8

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality..10

MaryMidgley: Trying Out Ones New Sword.12

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism....14

James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism..16

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative..18

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue..20

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights.22

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously..24

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice26

Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice28


5/29

Chapter 1

Title: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Quote: Of course it is possible for people to act altruistically, and perhaps many people doact that way, but there is no reason why they should do so. A person is under no obligation to

do anything except what is in his own interest.

Expectations: I expect to understand more on how people act, and to further understand

the reality.

Book Review:

Egoist are people who are into the world of philosophy, they usually tackle the issues about being selfish

or not. Egoism talks about how people sacrifice for others. Being selfish and unselfish which leads to almost the

same path, being selfish will include the following, they will do anything just to achieve their goals, same with

being unselfish. Being selfish an unselfish is always applied to each and every one of us. Selfishness is the center of

becoming a living thing, we get more advantage when having it. We could get more power, money, and people. It

cannot be avoided by anything or anyone. We can may be able to control ourselves, but knowing that it is

impossible, we may still do the things that we cannot avoid.

I think Mister James Rachel examined good enough the topic Egoist and Moral Scepticism. This article can

expand and improve the topic discussed, after reading this article, several people would be affected, because they

might not have realized that they are already an egoist.

Things I have learned:

After reading the whole chapter 1, I have realized that egoist is not a bad thing,sometimes it can be positive nor negative for us.

Integrity Questions:

How can selfishness or unselfishness be harmful? Advantages of being selfish & unselfish. Disadvantages of being selfish & unselfish. What can we get when we are an egoist?

~Page 5~


6/29

Review Questions:

1.) Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?-The Gyges used the power of the ring to be able to enter the royal place where

Gyges can kill the king, seduce the queen, and to gain the throne for himself.

2.) Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

-Psychological egoism talk straight to the fact while ethical egoism uses contrast

to view one persons act.

3.) Rachels discusses 2 arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments,

and how does he reply to them?

- The first argument talks about how one persons action is selfish while the

other person is unselfish.

-The Second Argument talks about unselfishness action always produce a senseof satisfactory of a person.

4.) What 3 commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis psychological

egoism?

-The other 2 confusions not clearly stated, and not clearly the same.

5.) State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt

Rachels accept this argument?

- Rachels believes that ethical egoism is somehow opposite.

6.) According to Rachels why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help others?

How can the egoist reply?

-Since almost everybody has the side of being selfish and unselfish, we should

make use of the advantages of it.

~Page 6~


7/29


8/29

Chapter 2

Title: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience.

Quote: Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divineomnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to

say that such things cannot be done that that God cannot do them.

Expectations: I expect to understand the concept in finding how morality is connected with

religion. To be able to gain more experience out of this topic. I expect to know how morality

and religion differs from each other.

Book Review:

Chapter 2 talks about religion, moral, and conscience. John Arthur, the author for this article hasdifferentiate these topic. God was mentioned, where I think it was the main purpose of the chapter, God is related.

Example: God has created everything which makes us possible for us to be living in this world. For what I

understand, morality is something which we can learn for others.

` John Arthur has been arguing between religion, he said that the religion is necessary to provide guidance

and moral motivation, which I think is correct.

About the Divine Command Theory, God was still the center of the topic in this article. God made

everything possible, the main issue is that, what if there is no God? Who created the world, and everything else?

This issue has made me realized how it really happened.

Things I have learned: I learned that


1.) Who is Dewey?2.) What is Religious Motivation?3.) Examples for Religion.4.) Examples for Morality.5.) Examples for Conscience.

~Page 8~


9/29

Review Questions:

1.) According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?- Morality is something which we may not realize. When the time come, you will

automatically know what it means.

2.) Why religious is necessary for moral motivation?- Religion is not necessarily important to us. Religion has nothing to do with moral

motivation, in the future, we will realize what is important and which is not.

3.) Why religious is necessary as a source of moral knowledge?- Religion basically explains how we use actions and belief.

4.) What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?- Divine Command Theory talks about God, where everything is related to God.

5.) According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?- Morality and religion has some parts that connect with each other.

6.) Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean according to Arthur?- John Arthur said that morality and religion are independent itself.Discussion Questions:

1.) Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?- Yes, Arthur was most likely disapprove the theory itself

2.) If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligation to non-humananimals?

- We should understand what Dewey has said, because it makes sense.3.) What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral

education?

- Moral education means that they have to apply the moral education anywhere andanytime.

~Page 9~


10/29

Chapter 3

Title: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality.

Quote: As a reality it is the fundamental face of all history, let us be so far honest towardsourselves!

Expectations: I expect to understand the topic within Master and Slavery Morality. What

interest other readers and how to apply them in reality.

Book Review:

Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher, has viewed the sources of modern existence and

deconstructionism. He has argued about the societys health said that the individuals has been practicing with the

use of will to power to drive into the domination and exploitation within the inferior.

From what I understand, slavery is a human being who has been working under a master, to be able to

repay their debt, or who has been sold to another person. Freedom are their main goal to achieve happiness.

While a master is also a human being wherein slaves was given, sold to them.


I learned that it is hardwork that can free most of the slaves. They need to do everything

what the master has ordered them to do.


1.) What is corruption?2.) What is will to power?3.) Who is Friedrich Nietzsche?4.) How does Master and Slavery differ from each other?5.) What is slave and master morality?

~Page 10~


11/29

Review Questions:

1.) How does Nietzsche characterize a good healthy society?- Friedrich characterized it as power, strength, egoism, submission, sympathy

and love.

2.) What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence, and exploitation?- These are the usual thing that happens until now.

3.) Distinguish between master morality and slave morality.- Master morality, those who are usually the main character, while slave

morality are those how expresses out their feelings towards somebody.

4.) Explain the Will to Power.- Will to power is just simply extra curriculums which were made by people

from the past time.

Discussion Questions:

1.) Some people view Nietzsches writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example,some have changed Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or

not? Why or why not?

- When other people views Nietzsches work, some of them are affected by it,maybe because they really are one of them.

2.) What does it mean to be a creator of values?- Creator of values is formed when somebody thinks about it and by applying

it.

~Page 11~


12/29

Chapter 4

Title: MaryMidgley: Trying Out Ones New Sword.

Quote: To respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make favourablejudgement, however general and tentative. Mary Midgley

Expectations: I expect to get more answers on how samurai from back then treats other

people.

Book Review:

Mary Midgley, is the author of the Trying Out Ones New Sword, and created many

other books, studied abroad for almost 20 or more years.

The best part which I have read was, the samurai had to try out their new weapon and

he had to finish his enemy with a single blow with a sword, or else he would lose his honor as a

samurai, hence it can affect their country and even disgrace for their emperor.

From what I understand, this chapter was almost talking about the samurai with a

tsujigiri which means a samurai with a sword.

Things I have learned: I learned many new things from this chapter Trying OutOnes New Sword, and how to apply it to us.

Integrity Questions:1.) Who is Mary Midgley?2.) What does Trying out ones new sword mean?3.) Does Samurai still exist in this era?4.) What can I/we learn from this chapter?5.) What moral can we get from them?

~Page 12~


13/29

Review Questions:

1.) What is moral isolationism?- Mary said that it is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot

criticize cultures that we do not understand. Meaning, we need to mind our

own cultures, if we dont know, then we should not interfere with others.2.) Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this

custom?

- This is the time where the Japanese culture do their job.3.) What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?

- According to Midgley, moral isolation is something that has been a conflict tomost of the people.

4.) What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?- We have the right to live, we cannot judge others just being themselves.


1.) Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessmentof Nietzsche? Why or why not?

- It is not accurate and not a fair assessment, because Midgley can think of otherreason also the same with Nietzsche can also think of other ideas. We are not

the same with each other.

2.) Do you agree with Midgleys claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures isunreal? Explain you answer.

- I dont agree with that idea, because every country has different cultures, theyhave their culture and we have ours.

~Page 13~


14/29

Chapter 5

Title: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Quote: There is nothing originally more desirable about money than about any heap ofglittering pebbles John Stuart

Expectations: I expect to further understand the moral lesson of this

chapter.

Book Review:

John Stuart, the author of this chapter, discussed the great things about happiness in this article. My main

question is how does one person know if there is happiness happening around them. Can it be made by someone,

something? Can happiness be bought by money? How does the utility involved whit this chapter?

From what I have understand in this chapter, happiness can do many things, you can have great power,

meaning to gain control of something which others cannot control. Almost everything can be bought by money,

you can do anything with money, there is the only thing that cant be bought by money, and that is friendship and

real love.

According to John Stuart The principle of utility does not mean that any given pleasure, as music, or any

given exemption from pain as for example health, is to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed

happiness, and to be desired on that account. This part made a strong meaning, wherein if somebody read this,

they can easily understand what principles of utility mean.

Things I have learned: I have learned that not all can be bought by money, or money canbuy everything.


1.) What does Utilitarianism mean?2.) Who is John Stuart?3.) What did John Stuart did contribute?4.) How does happiness takes place?5.) What are the principles of utility?

~Page 14~


15/29

Review Questions:

1.) State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actionsthat are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.

-

Principle of utility be abused when there are people who uses it in the negativeway.

2.) How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only ofswine?

- John Stuart Mill discussed or explain the things he wants it.3.) How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

- Pleasures can be done by our own actions depending on how we do it.4.)

According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

- Everyones happiness is considered, no more, no less.5.) Carefully reconstruct Mills proof of the Principle of Utility.

- Friendship, true love can be a proof of the principle of utility.Discussion Questions:

1.) Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do youthink?

- I think happiness can be a pleasure in some ways, and it can also be an absenceof pain or vice versa.

2.) Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lowerones?

- It depends, because are the ones who make it as higher or lower pleasures.3.) Mill says, In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the

ethics of utility. Is this true or not?

- I think it is not true.4.) Many commentators have thought that Mills proof of the Principle of Utility is

defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is

there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

- I can say that I agree.

~Page 15~


16/29

Chapter 6

Title: James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism.

Quote: We think that friendship is a good thing, and so having friends makes us happy

-James Rachels

Expectations: I expect to learn more from this chapter than the first

chapter of James Rachels.

Book Review:

This is the second time I have read the work of Rachels, I find this chapter more interesting than the first

chapter of his work. This chapter says what a person has, example the right to live, it is an interesting topic. I asked

myself, what if there are no rules, law, what will happen to us right now? I have imagined how we look right now,

how about financial stability? Are we still be studying at our school? We should apply happiness right now since we

are all lucky to live with a good life. If theres no justice and law, we could be hurt, and the worst is we caould be

dead by now, without anybody knowing it.

Things I have learned: Everybody has the right to do something, it was made by the law,justice also apply to us.


1.) Did James Rachels contributed more in this chapter?2.) What is utilitarian doctrine?3.) What does happiness have to do in this chapter?4.) What is consequence?5.) What is rule- utilitarian?

Review Questions:

1.) Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions.What are they?

- The first is when they have done something wrong, they should face theconsequences. The second is all about being happy or not. Third is how to

balance the happiness and the opposite of it.

~Page 16~


17/29

2.) Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond tothis problem?

- A possible problem with hedonism could be in a high living, also be a self-pleasing person.

3.) What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?- For me, I think theres no objection for these, what if theres no justice, right,

and promises? Can we still be us right now?

4.) Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism replyto the objections?

- For rule utilitarianism, it talks about the new theory while act utilitarianism talksabout how common a theory is.

5.)What is the third line of defense?

- The third line of defense talks about the argument, the right of each individual,and justice.


1.) Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when theyconflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer

- I think it is acceptable.2.) A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be

considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

- We all must consider with the conflicts, same with non-human as long as theyare a living things.

3.) Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent ofutility. Do you agree?

- Yes, I agree.

~Page 17~


18/29

Chapter 7

Title: Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Quote: What does it matter to me? Let everyone can be as happy as Heaven wills or as he

can make himself; I wont deprive him of anything I wont even envy him; only I have no wish to

contribute anything to his well-being or to his support to distress! Immanuel Kant

Expectations: I expect to understand more things about the categorical

imperative.

Book Review:

The author of this chapter Immanuel Kant, said that Good Will can extremely hurt other people. There are

some qualities that can be really helpful and can make the work easier. For the good will and its result basically

talks about how the effect others.

For what I have understood, the hypothetical imperatives talks about what you do before doing

something. And categorical imperatives talks about how you do things on the spot without doing some test.


I have learned what I have expected to learn in this chapter, about the categorical

imperative topic.


1.) Who is Immanuel Kant?2.) What did Immanuel Kant do?3.) What is good will?4.) What is categorical imperative?5.) How can this chapter help us?

Review Questions:

1.) Explain Kants account of the good will.- According to Kant, to conceive is everything in this world.

~Page 18~


19/29

2.) Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.- For hypothetical imperatives, it is something that can be obtained before what is

going to happen or trying it before testing, while categorical imperatives is doing

it in the act.

3.) State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of auniverse law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties

toward self and others.

- Kant explained what he think, where the categorical imperative talks about theLaw .

4.) State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of meansand ends). And explain it.

- Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that itshould become universal law. It says that law are everywhere, it is applied even

though we like it or not.


1.) Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of onebasic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

- I think both has almost equal thoughts.2.) Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral

worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

- Yes, I agree.3.) Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first

formulation) can be used to justify non-moral actions. Is this a good criticism?

- It is a good criticism.

~Page 19~


20/29

Chapter 8

Title: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

Quote: The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth isevidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something

else. -Aristotle

Expectations: I expect to learn more about the moral virtue of this chapter.

Book Review:

Aristotle the author of this chapter discussed about happiness of a person. Everybody has right to have a

happy life, there are some cases where they can be sad, like a cause of death of a relative, when that happens it

would definitely cause sadness in a humans life. Happiness could not always applied in a person even though the

richest person in the would get sad. They cant buy real friendship, real love and of course air. You can achievehappiness by having pleasure over something.


I learned that Aristotle has contributed more than I have expected.


1.) Who is Aristotle?2.) What did Aristotle contribute?3.) What did Aristotle argued?4.) What lesson can be learned in this chapter?5.) Are there any other characters mention in this chapter?

Review Questions:

1.) What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it relatedto pleasure?

- Happiness is where you get pleasure out of something.2.) How does Aristotle explain moral virtue?

- The virtue what Aristotle has explained was all about the nature of somebody whichrelated to some basics in a humans life.

~Page 20~


21/29

3.) Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains? If not, whocannot be happy?

- I is possible that everyone can be happy, there are some examples where someonewould not be happy, like a cause of death in a family.


1.) Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, iswrong with a life of pleasure?

- Aristotle characterized a life of pleasure as suitable for beast. For my opinion, I thinkif there are problems, we need to solve it by ourselves.

2.)Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Doyou agree or not?

- I agree, all philosophers who would claim it, would be really happy.

~Page 21~


22/29

Chapter 9

Title: Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights

Quote: The important thing is not what Ive let into it, but what Ive kept out - Joel Feinberg

Expectations: I expect to learn more on the topic nature and value of

rights.

Book Review:

Joel Feinberg, the author for this chapter discussed about the Nowheresville, where it is

all related to the nature and the value of right per individual. There are several people in this

planet who thinks that they are naturally treated unfairly due to their personal living and also

due to their style. To be able to think what is right and what is wrong is the main topic thatshould be discussed. For what I have understand, claim-rights is something that can be

obtained be anyone, they can be living freely due to this right.


I learned that not all people are equally treated fairly.


1.) Who is the author of this chapter?2.) What is nature?3.) What is value of rights?4.) What is claim-rights?5.) What did the author contributed?

Review Questions:

1.) Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?- According to Feinberg, it is a world like our own except that people do not have the

rights.

2.) Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinbergsposition on this doctrine?- It is where people have their own right to do a specific thing.

~Page 22~


23/29

3.) How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desertwork in Nowheresville?

- Personal desert will work in Nowheresville when it is applied to the concept.4.) Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville

according to Feinberg?

- It can work anytime whenever it is needed.5.) What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

- Claim-rights is where all of us has to have rights.Discussion Questions:

1.) Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?- Yes, it is true that we should have rights of our own.

2.) Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?- Claim-right is having each one of us gain our own right to continue living.

~Page 23~


24/29

Chapter 10

Title: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

Quote: The institute requires an act of faith on the part of the memories Ronald Dworkin

Expectations: I expect to get information on the topic what are the

differences between law and rights.

Book Review:

Ronald Dworkin, the author of this chapter discussed about the right of each and every

one of us. We have the right to do anything, but not crime, we can get seriously in trouble if we

did that. We cant let others push us around, we can fight back when needed. Thats the right of

being a person with right. Almost the higher position in the government controls the right.What will happen when we broke their rules? Will they kill us? In order not to let them hurt us,

we can unite, when united, we are counted as more powerful than the government.

Things I have learned: I learned that the law can sometimes be scary, once we didsomething wrong, they can punish anyone.


1.) Who is Ronald Dworkin?2.) Discuss the rights of citizens.3.) What can right do to help us?4.) Can the right be harmful to us?5.) Are there anyone controlling the right?

Review Questions:

1.) What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense areprotected by the U.S. Constitution?

- Strong sense means that we have a strong feeling. Have our own right.

~Page 24~


25/29

2.) Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that arenot moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.

- Legal right is where the right exist within the given system, as for moral right, it isthe right where doing something which is related to our living as a person.

3.) What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens?Which does Dworkin find more attractive?

- The first is the right where law exist. The second is the right which the higherposition in the government controls over something.

4.) According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?- How to prove that rights are used for good, and not for the opposite.Discussion Questions:

1.) Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?- Yes, Every person has a right to do something, depending on what they have done,

its either bad or good, there will be an outcome for these action.

2.) Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mills utilitarianism?- Yes, it I capable with Mills utilitarianism.

3.) Do you think that Kant would accept right in the strong sense or not?- I think Kant would accept right in the strong sense.

~Page 25~


26/29

Chapter 11

Title: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

Quote: A theory of justice depends upon a theory of society in ways that will becomeevident as we proceed John Rawls

Expectations: I expect to learn more about the theory of justice.

Book Review:

Things I have learned: I expect to learn more how justice can help us more on our dailylives.

The author of this chapter, John Rawls discussed the importance of justice, how justice can do. Justice can

be the basis of our li fe. From time to time, justice is everywhere, when theres justice, crime can be lessen,

because in our society, crime is the basic things that are happening in our country. In the book where I have read,

stated by John Rawls justice as fairness is not a complete contract theory it is a contract where choices can be

entended so that we can choose more from them.


1.) Who is john Rawls?2.) What did he contribute?3.) What is the theory of justice?4.) What are the principles of justice?5.) What is justice?

Review Questions:

1.) Carefully explain Rawlss conception of the original position.- It was explain as justice can be the center of attraction in the society.

2.) State and explain Rawlss first principle of justice.- The first principle of justice explains about how simple justice can be.

~Page 26~


27/29

3.) State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannotbe sacrificed?

- For the second principle, it explains how our government and economics do.

Discussion Questions:1.) On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty

as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow

people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in

homosexual activities as long as they dont interfere with others? Can people produce

and view pornography if it does not restrict anyones freedom? Are people allowed to

take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

- I think yes, they have their privacy in their homes, they can do whatever they wantexcept to kill.

2.) Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon differentprinciples than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldnt they agree to an equal

distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why

wouldnt they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isnt socialism just as rational as

capitalism?

- I think yes, they can do whatever they like but they have to prove it that they arecorrect.

~Page 27~


28/29

Chapter 12

Title: Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice

Quote: Their rights, and respect for rights, are quite compatible with very great misery, andmisery whose causes are not just individual misfortunes and physic sickness, but social and

moral improverishment Annette C. Baier

Expectations: I expect to learn more on the topic the need for more

than justice

Book Review:

The author of this chapter Annette C. Baier, discussed about how we need justice, what

to do when we have justice, if we think what is correct, then we should do it, or else dont do it.

We should prove it before we act, rather than going to war without and armor and weapon. All

of us has the justice waiting for us.


I learned that we different social cultures.


1.) Who is Annette Baier?2.) What contribution was made?3.) How can this chapter help us?4.) What is moral theory?5.) What is counter culture?

Review Questions:

1.) Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how dothese perspectives develop?

- Justice perspectives and care perspectives are the right of each and every one of us.

~Page 28~


29/29

2.) Explain Kohlbergs theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baiermake of this theory?

- One should learn from experience.3.) Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their

critics. What are these differences?

- She said that relationship are equal, freedom of choice and the authority in emotion.4.) Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?

- She does what she think was correct.Discussion Questions:

1.) What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need to transvalue the values of ourpatriarchal past? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon theold values of justice, freedom, and right?

- Yes, for me, I will not abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and right.2.) What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings,

including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

- I disagree.3.) Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not

choose our parent, but still dont we have freedom of choice about many things, and

isnt this very important?

- Yes, we cant choose parents, we cannot choose some freedom.

~Page 29~

compiled cmp

Documents