itethic - contemporary moral problems

8/14/2019 ITETHIC - Contemporary Moral Problems

1/26

CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

Submitted by:

Francisco T. GuisonDe La Salle - College of Saint BenildeSchool of Management and Information TechnologyITETHICS.Y 2008-2009

Submitted to: Mr. Paul Amerigo Pajo


2/26

Book Review: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Book: Contemporary Moral ProblemsLibrary Reference:Amazon Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:The moral institution of life

It is true that this is a full moral institution of life. We are basing our beliefs here because we want it toapply in our own personal way. In this discussion, we are exploring how to use our respective egoism andmoral scepticsm to be able to understand our beliefs in life.

Learning Expectations

I want to learn how James Rachel came to this idea?

The difference of psychological Egoism and ethical egoism?

Why is it called moral institution of life?

Review:

The first topic of this chapter discussed about the Egoism and Moral Scepticism. First of all, we need todefine what Egoism is and how egoism can affect our lives. Egoism is a study or a doctrine of morals thatare focuses in individual interests. The individual interest is the base part of the human why they need tobecome happier in life. The human are very sensitive to their interests and this means that their interestsare the only key to continue their respective lives. Ones own interests are greater important than anyother important things existed. If people ask you what are your interests, you will proudly answer yourinterests with a description as much as possible so that the one you are talking to will also have aninterest of you. If the two of you has the same interest, then it is a great chance that you have a newfriend because of your common interests. Thats the concept of interest with egoism.

Going back to the book, stated here that Psychological egoism is the view that all human are selfish in

everything that they do. It is self interest per se, because every human has a way to have interest ofsomething. Interest that is something to be proud of and this interest are sometimes useful to get theinterest of the public. Men are acting in ways apparently calculated to benefit others. This means thatwe have different perspective, different point of view in interests thats why it is stated that men are actingways. The calculated to benefit others are somewhat different. The interest of an individual can bebenefited by other person. For example, this person is very dedicated to his work and at the same time,he has also great interest with his work, his co-worker, honestly did not like his work and has no interestof his work at all. So his co-worker needs to talk to the one who has more interest in their work. As theywork together, the outcome is that the co-worker is very dependent on him. As a result, their work couldbe unproductive because the focus element is not present on their respective work. Thats thePsychological Egoism means and explanation of this book. On the other hand, Ethical Egoism is thecontrast of Psychological egoism. A normative view about how men ought to act. It means that the manis just always justified or defensible on what interests he/she may have regardless the effect of others.

They consider their interests to be as is. Justified on what they have, and interest will keep up the reasonwhy they want to be in this life.

What Ive learned:

I learned how egoism and moral scepticsm can be applied to our lives. Interests are the key to satisfy ourfeelings. This is the reason why we tend to have interest with something or somebody. The selfishness isa good thing but it depends on the person how to control selfishness. The interest will keep the same butif there somethings wrong with the interest, then theres a big possibility that person will have no interestwith it. The feelings of the person will be satiated and it depends on him/her to get back the interest again.


3/26

Integrative Questions:1.) What are the difference between egoism and moral sceptism?2.) What are the difference between Ethical egoism and Psychological Egoism?3.) Why it is that selfishness is existed in interests?4.) What is the main function of egoism in our lives?5.) Why Rachel study egoism?

Citations:Contemporary Moral Problems: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism pp. 2 8

Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?

The legend of Gyges is a shepherd who was said to have found a magic ring in a fissureor a crack opened by an earthquake. The morality is that Gyges used the power to thering to gain entry to the Royal Palace. This means that Gyges only wants a power to ruleand seized the throne of the King.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

The psychological egoism is that Gyges has an interest in the ring to acquire power. Heis selfish type because he acts for his own interest. The ethical egoism is that he has noobligation to do such thing. He just interested with this.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and howdoes he reply to them?

These arguments are persons action as selfish and unselfish actions always produce asense of self-satisfaction in the agent.

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

Selfishness with self-interest, every action is done either from self-interest or other-regarding motives, and A concern for ones own welfare is incompatible with any genuineconcern for the welfare of others.

5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachels acceptthis argument?

It is the contrast of Psychological Egoism. He believe that obligation is useless thaninterest.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help hoers? How can theegoist reply?

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, Why be moral? If so, whatexactly is his answer?

Yes, because Rachel explains the true meaning of interests with morality.

2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others evenpeople they dont know?

It is not a fact for me, because we are talking here the interest of individuals. It will nowdepend on that person if they care for other people.

3. Suppose we define ethical unselfishness as the view that one should always act for the benefit ofothers and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

For me, the word unselfishness is a moral virtue because that perspective is not in selfinterest. Unselfishness can give other person opportunity.


4/26

Book Review: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference:

Amazon Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:Just what are we referring to when we speak of morality and religion?

I chose this quote because the morality and religion are present on this quote. As we go on to thisdiscussion, John Arthur will discuss to us anything related under morality and religion discussions. Howdoes this virtue can affect people lives?


The connection of morality and religion

Learn how religion impacts the people for motivation and guidance. How divine command theory works?

Is Morality is social?

Review:

John Arthur divided his discussions into 4 major parts namely, the Morality and religion, Religiousmotivation and guidance, the divine command theory, and morality is social. As we noticed, it is all aboutthe issues of morality. Each discussion of this has a topic of morality and because of this; John Arthurapproaches the nature of morality in every people lives. He will discuss the connection of Morality andreligion. He defined religion as involved beliefs in supernatural powers that created and controlled bynature. This means that it is only the connection between God and the people.

Morality is different from religion. The contrasts of these 2 values are very much alike but the way of doingit is different. Morality involves attitudes toward value form of behavior. This means that it all depends onthe behavior of a human to correct his/her humanity. On the other hand, Religion is somewhatsupernatural and this means that it involves prayers as a communication for God and it is also typically inan institutional forms. It is different.

The second discussion of John Arthur is the Religious motivation and guidance. He discussed here howreligion is necessary to provide moral motivation. It is true that as a human, it is necessary to have areligion because it is a guide and motivation for us to live on earth but John Arthur argues that there is aproblem in religion for motivation and guidance the what if scenarios is the contrary of the seconddiscussion. We cannot argue with humans because it is their decision and other people have nothing todo about it unless, that person needs an advice for his/her problem. Anyway, people are more focusingon what ifs and as a result, we are afraid to do so. The tendency of what ifs is that people will think that

religion is under their morality.

The third discussion is the divine command theory. This discussion is focused on a particular point ofview made by Mortimer. It is stated here that divine command theory would mean that God has the samesort of relation to moral law as the legislature. It simply expresses that without Gods commands; therewould be no moral rules in this world. No divine command theory exists. It is believed that God is thefoundation of morality. They argued about the command theory but in the end, it will depend on Godsdecision whether or not one supports the divine command theory. God created and owns it. The questionnow is that if the people will follow the command?


5/26

The fourth discussion entitled Morality is social He explained that morality might correctly be thought tobe social. How about religion? It is stated here that it is influential. It is one-sided of morality and thismeans that it focuses only on one aspect of morality. It will also depend on what religion you have.Morality governs relationship among people. Not relating any religious terms, this is people to peoplemorality.

What Ive learned:

I learned the principles of Religion, Morality and Conscience interconnected together. All of these have adifferent aspects or point of view but they have one message. This message is to control the behavior ofindividuals in doing what is right and what is wrong.

Integrative Questions:

What are the connections of religion, morality, and conscience?

The differences of these?

How these 3 can affect people lives?

How John Arthur portrays religion, morality and conscience?

Can people believe this?

Citations: N/A

Contemporary Moral Problems: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism pp. 17 25

Review Questions:1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?

The morality is the quality of right or wrong of act of a particular person. While religion isinvolves supernatural aspects like prayers, and believing in God or Goddesses

2. Why isnt religion necessary for moral motivation?

It is not necessary because it all depends on human decisions. Religion based on thestudy of Arthur, is just a guide for us to do what is right and wrong. In the end, the humanconscience will decide.

3. Why isnt religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge We cant even determine what is right and wrong up to the point that we are realizing it. It

is not necessary for me, because it depends on the decision of that person. Religion isjust guidance for them.

4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?

No divine theories exist. It is just God who defines the command and there could be aright or wrong. He rejected this theory because in the eyes of God, it is right or wrong butin the people, we wouldnt know if it is right or wrong.

5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

Peoples moral views are shaped by their religious beliefs. This serves as their foundationof morality. But morality is just an act of the person.

6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?

According to Arthur, moralitys social character has a deeper meaning of what it is.

Discussion Questions:1. Has Arthur refute the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?

Yes, because he believes that religion is different from morality. DCT is just only for God.2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman

animals?

It is only for humans. Morality inherently social nature and dictates of conscience viewed.3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral

education?

Moral education is possible and most especially essential to learn.


6/26

Book Review: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality


Library Reference:

Amazon Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:

The superior person follows a master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom.

The master-morality is somewhat powerful because it has power, strength, egoism and freedom toachieve. This is focusing on what people have.


1.) I expect to have a background and know the meaning of Slave-mortality.2.) To know better master-morality is.

Review:

From the word master-morality, It is yourself is the master of your morality. Its true that you, yourselfcan only make decision for your life. We, ourselves are the master of our own life. Just like a poem says,I am the master of my soul. Basing it to this quote, we are able to control ourselves by mastering whatpersonality we have, what kind of attitude we have, characteristics we have and other stuffs in ourselves.We need to master it as much as possible because we know ourselves better than anyone else. MasterMorality is defined as What is good is helpful and what is bad is harmful. This means that all people whoare doing the good side is very much helpful so that means, this people can be benefited by anotherpeople unlike in the harmful side, it is the opposite, bad is harmful, disadvantage of other people.

This discussion talks all about what a human has in all aspect. In real life, we have a master who can

command slaves to do a particular job. Thats the literal meaning of it. Masters are those people who ruleslaves life. On this discussion, It focuses on the Master morality and Slave morality Thats whyFriedrich Nietzsche discussed this. Above we defined Master Morality; on the other hand, we will defineslave-morality. Slave-morality is a re-sentiment and the morality is based on intention. We will find outhow this 2 works on the life of the people.

It is obvious that Master morality is much powerful than slave morality. It is the side of good and evil. Theevil man arouses fears and seeks to arouse it. On the other hand, the good man who arouses fear seeksto arouse it. This means that

What Ive learned:

I learned that these two moralities have somewhat similar to each other because they have similarities

but this similarity has a different approach. It is hard to explain because it contradicts the good and thebad side moralities. In my own understanding, Master morality is much greater and better because ofcourse you have a power unlike slave morality. The slave morality can overcome master morality if theslave morality has a determination to overcome it.


7/26


1.) Why is it that Master morality is more powerful than slave-morality?2.) Can Slave morality overcome Master-morality?3.) How does this two works?4.) Which is much better?5.) Is it possible that both sides can be neutralized?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

He characterizes it by illustrating that weakness conquered strength. The slave moralityon his perspective is much stronger than Master morality.

2. What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence, and exploitation? He describes slave morality with these words. His point of view looking up to the power of

slave morality is much better.3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.

Master morality is much powerful compared to slave morality. Master will command theslaves. As they command it, the slaves must follow it.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

The will of power is the interest to have power.


1. Some people view Nietzsches writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some havecharged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?

Yes it is dangerous because it can obviously attack the feelings of slaves. There isdiscrimination while studying this. But we are talking here are power.

2. What does it mean to be a creator of value?

It is Master morality because these are the creators of power that has values.


8/26

Book Review: Mary Midgley: Trying Out ones New Sword


Library Reference:

Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:

Moral Isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralist. It falsely assumes that cultures are separateand unmixed, whereas most cultures are n fact formed out many influences

Learning Expectations:

1.) What exactly Isolationism is?2.) Is this effective to our lives?

3.) Does the example of Japanese

Review:

We have different culture. When God created the world, we have only one culture. But because of oursin, we are separated to each other. We have so many beliefs and culture now. For sure, they have manybeliefs to follow. It is complicated because every beliefs and every culture are very much different. For us,we have also our own beliefs. We are Catholics who believe in God. He is our God, the symbol of eachlife as a catholic. Also, there are other Gods or Goddesses in other country. For instance in Japan, theirGod is Buddha, and in other country who had different Gods or Goddesses.

It is Isolationism because we strictly cannot interfere to other beliefs. The key here is respect. They willrespect you if you will respect them. There are instances that we cannot understand their beliefs, and viceversa. All we have to do is to follow their beliefs. Its for sure that some of their beliefs, we cannot accept itas is.

Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. To respect someone, we have to know enoughabout the culture to make a favorable judgment, however general and tentative. And we do notunderstand people in other cultures to this extent. This means that it is hard to accept the respect theyhave, vice versa.

What Ive learned:

We have different culture, beliefs, from other people around the world. What is common is that we are allhumans who have respective beliefs. The only problem is that it is hard to respect the beliefs of what theyhave. Sometimes, it is a conflict to our beliefs. Thats why this discussion is also hard to understand.


1.) How Isolationism does affected each belief?2.) Is it true that respect can be controllable?3.) How is it related to the world today?

Citations: N/A


9/26

Review Questions:

1. What is moral isolationism? It is being respectful to other cultures and societies. The high level of respecting other

culture.2. Explain the Japanese customer of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this

custom? The cultural background of this example is very much sensitive to the observers

because of different cultural backgrounds. Specifically the Japanese culture isvery complicated to understand.

3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?

Isolationism is sensitive because people may disrespect your culture or beliefs.4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?

She thinks how isolationism works. By doing this, she can analyze behavior ofeach culture.


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

No, because she just interpreted her assessment over this issue. She is not biasin giving this. She is not an immoralist.

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

Yes, I agree with this because basically it is separate culture.


10/26

Book Review: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism


Library Reference:

Amazon Reference:

Quote:

The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all otherthings being desirable as means to that end.


I expect to have a enough concept about utilitarianism

To have more ideas in this doctrine.

Review:

The word utility defined as the usefulness of something. The exact meaning is that it is being useful.Because of this word, utility, utilitarianism concept came out. It is a doctrine of the greatest good. It ismore on an ethical aspect with happiness. Its positive for the feelings of people. If people are satisfiedwith this happiness, then it would be voted to be a utilitarian. The practicality is also the key of thisdiscussion because primarily, a person who thinks practical is also called utilitarian. Believing the valuelies in usefulness. This means that people will depend on the usefulness of other person. Theperspective is also good and somewhat bad because they want to acquire the advantage of each other.

As we go on to this chapter, we will know the true meaning of utilitarianism. It is seeking for theadvantage of other. They are making use of other people so that they can acquire the advantage partover it. As a result, the one who are advantageous are the one who will gain benefit. The usefulness wasused by him/her. He/she had a good strategy in making people doing this. Of course it is a bad doctrine

or idea for the people but many people are using this doctrine. It is the desire of the people to becomehappier. Then, they must take an advantage to use utilitarianism.

What Ive learned:

Utilitarianism for me is good and bad. It is good because when a particular person did this doctrine, he /she will gain benefit to that person. For instance, you have no talent for a particular activity, then yourgroup mate is very much skilled to do the activity, the tendency is that he/she will be dependent to thisperson who knows the activity well. Who gained advantage? Of course, the person who are dependentIt is bad because its not a pleasing doctrine for the eyes of the people.

Every day, utilitarianism is happening. People just dont mind about this doctrine but it is happening everynow and then specifically if a particular person has a group work or working employee and etc. We have

nothing to do but only to study this doctrine and this will happen forever and ever.


1.) How Utilitarianism works?2.) Who is the utilitarian?3.) Why usefulness are advantageous4.) Does it happening every now and then?5.) Can people really acquire utilitarianism as a benefit to them?


11/26

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

Utility simply means the usefulness of something that is very useful. But here inthis essay, We are not talking things here, we are talking humans who areinvolved in using other peoples talent or whatsoever to acquire benefit.

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

Neither harm nor be harm. The free pursue of happiness. For him, its notenough to explain this because it has no enough evidence for this quote.

3. How odes Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

He has a point in determining the pleasures. Higher pleasure can lead to

happiness; on the other hand, lower pleasure will come into period.4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

When you are happy, and so be it.Discussion Questions:

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

For me, I choose happiness because for me, it is somehow everlasting.Everlasting happiness pleasure is just for a short period of time.

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

Higher pleasure for me is a advantage part for me to become happy.3. Mill says, In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spriit of the

ethics of utility. Is this true or not?

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 toreformulate the proof so that it is not defective?


12/26

Book Review: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism


Library Reference:

Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-white/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_sim_b_2/185-6566170-6503008

Quote:

The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable asmeans to that end.


Learn how to deal with utilitarianism.

ReviewThe first part of this discussion discussed about classical utilitarianism. This shows that utilitarianism hasa classical practice and different from a new one. It is described here in three propositions. First, theactions acted are to be judged right or wrong solely with a virtue of their consequences. People mayjudge you as who you are maybe right or wrong, they dont care about it as long as they can judge you.The second one is determining the cause of happiness. The person must be right in determining his/herhappiness and also he/she should be in right actions to have a balance in happiness. The third one is thatno ones happiness can be measured as more important than anyone elses. The happiness can be onlymeasured by ourselves so that we are satisfied of what happiness we have.

In this essay, many people in the society like the philosophers and economists theorized about makingmans decision over happiness. All of them argued about the issue of utilitarianism. It is complicatedbecause of the arguments but they still managed to get the basic idea and it should be correct.

It is stated here that the utilitarian doctrine is the happiness and desirable. Yes, all of us need to behappy at all cost or as much as possible. It is so called the ultimate good. It is the highest form of thefeelings we have. The most attractive theory studied because of its simplicity and happiness can make usfeel. Because people argued about this discussion, the utilitarianism has a defense on these arguments.It is the theory. Utilitarianism shows the consequences are the only things that matters and seems to bemistaken. Nobodys perfect of course.

What Ive learned:

I learned that the utilitarianism has so many issues and there are many arguments released by manypeople in the society. The utilitarianism is justified in this discussion as a line of defense. I learned thelines of defense stated here. These are the important lines to really defend a utilitarianism point of view.

The first line of defense is that Utilitarianism as a guide of decision that is irrelevant. This means that it issomewhat imaginary decision. Second line is that this will have a conflict with common sense. Lot ofpeople usually thinks about this and it is a good defense over utilitarianism. The third line of defensedescribes that utilitarianism is strange with ordinary philosophy of justice. The matches made conflict. Thecorrect about utilitarianism is that we are giving responsibility for all actions. On the other hand, peopleshow choices to deserve different kinds of arguments received.


13/26


1. How Stuart Mill does discussed this thoroughly.2. Why Stuart Mill does compare this to pleasure?3. Is happiness the only thing that matters?4. How does people in the society theorized utilitarianism?5. How does he defend the utilitarianism?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this

problem?3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the

objections?5. What is the third line of defense?


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

2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must beconsidered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Doyou agree?


14/26

Book Review: Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative


Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-white/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_sim_b_2/185-6566170-6503008

Quote:

The moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule


I expect to know what categorical imperative is in laymans term.

How does categorical imperative can affect our lives?

The rules of categorical imperative produced by Immanuel Kant

Review:

In the first discussion of this essay, Immanuel Kant portrays the so called Good Will. This good will lead aparticular person to good feelings of life. Anything that is good in the earth will be acquired by this person.Surely, that person is one of the luckiest creatures here on earth. Sometimes, all of these can be hurtfulbased on the discussion it is because it is like a gift of fortune which only fortunate people who are luckyto have a fortunate fate or destiny. The good of will is the will that are destined to each individual. Anothergood will is the good will and its results. Sometimes, good will just hide somewhere or hidden somewherein your life and then it will come out unexpectedly.

Lets go to the main topic of this essay which is the Categorical imperative. It is basically the base of willthat the maxim of a person should be in universal law. This means that the law of individual is the law ofuniversal. The categorical imperative heart is in this quote: Act only on that maxim through which you

can at the same time wills that it should become a universal law At first, it is hard to understand this. It ishard to explain in laymans term. So basically, the key here is the maxim of act because it gives color tothe action and gives definite definition to the act done. It is considered as a universal law when peoplesupported your idea. The tendency is that other people will just one thought.

What Ive learned:

I learned the values of Good will in this particular essay. Immanuel Kant portrays it as a basis ofdetermining the good will in our lives. The destiny will guide us for the good will so that we prepared touse this good will given to us.


1.) How Immanuel Kant does analyses the maxim of each people decision.2.) What is the maxim in the Categorical Imperative?3.) How does it work for the people who are living with this?4.) How does good will can help our lives?5.) What is the concept of Categorical imperative?

Citations: N/A


15/26

Review Questions:

1. Explain Kants account of the good will. The good will for him is destiny. It is unimaginable to have everything in the

world. But the good will will lead them to a better life.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperative means there is no assurance beforehand what will it

contain. On the other hand, Categorical imperative includes the necessities of ahuman including the maxim.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universelaw), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self andothers.

The maxim is equals to a universal law.4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and

ends). And explain it. The means and ends are the symbol of finish. We must do everything to have

different outcome.


1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basicrule, or are they tow different rules? Defend your view.

These versions are completely different from each other. Both sides have adifferent point of view/contrast

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.

Not agree, because all of us have a motivation to do a particular task. The motiveof the determination has no moral worth.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the firstformulation) can be used to justify nonmoral actions. Is this a good criticism? Well, all of us generally has a different perspective in ideas about categorical

imperative. We need to respect them. But for me, it is a good criticism that theycriticize categorical imperative. Another one is to have an adjustment pertainingto this topic.


16/26

Book Review: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue




Quote:We must be content, then in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truthroughly and in outline

Learning Expectations:

I expect basically what is the true meaning of happiness and virtue to our lives.

How can this aspect change our lives?

How Aristotle did discuss this essay?

Review:

Aristotle is one of the most famous Greek philosophers in the entire history. The concepts that heexplained are very unique and all of that concept are really happening in the reality. We are thankful forhim because without his study, we cannot give justifications on what we have today specifically moralethics. As we all know, moral ethics is one of the greatest study of man because we must know exactlywhere we are in the eyes of God or whoever god we believe into. Aristotle is one of the greatest and mosttalented philosophers in the world. He has an ethics to explain and that is happiness and virtue.

In this particular essay, Aristotle gave importance and discussion to happiness and virtue. These aspects

are included into the morality of human. It is hard to understand at first glance because it is very complexand not in order. But Aristotle gave a true color and meaning of these two. In happiness, in a laymansterm, it is described as a simple pleasure that a human can achieve. A human can feel the pleasure andcontentment of what he/she is doing. As a result of being happy, he/she is now the human that is reallyoptimistic in predicting the future. Another definition is that happiness is very much satisfying feelingwherein a human is above excitement feeling. It is where the human aims for a good life to be a happyperson here on earth. Seeking for happiness is a difficult for every people because it also depends on ourpersonality as a human. Another problem is when and how can a person find happiness. It is important toknow how we can find our own happiness because it is the source of being happy while we live here onearth. Aristotle explained that We must be content, then in speaking such subjects and with suchpremises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline. Basing on what he said, we must be contented onwhat we have because all of it is part of being happy. Well of course, it depends on us whether weappreciate it or not but the sense of being happy is because we are here living the life we should have.

Appreciating life is one of the happiness we can achieve because God created us in His own will and wemust be happy about it. We are happy in a way that we appreciate the lives that are given to us.

On the second discussion, he discussed about the value of virtue. It is basically a good conduct thatarises from habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action. This means that virtue is on thegood side.


17/26

What Ive learned:

I learned the basic principle of happiness and virtue. We must appreciate that the happiness is one of thegreatest ethical aspect that we should be into because it gives color to our lives. Imagine life withouthappiness, not even a single happiness will lead us to be a serious type of person which is focus only ona particular things. The power of happiness can rule us because we feel pleasure about it in a sense thatwe must get into it. On the other hand, virtue is a good perspective wherein the people aims for a goodreason at all.

When people can find the virtue, it can lead us to the value of happiness. Both of that aspect can jointogether because it is a good will explained by Aristotle. We are very sensitive in our feelings andbecause we are sensitive, Aristotle explained and justify all about this topic. Thanks to him because weare knowledgeable and justified on what our feeling is.


1. How does happiness relate to virtue and vice versa? 2. How Aristotle did explain all of these?3. Is it true that it is hard to find happiness?4. Does the virtue and happiness affect our lives?5. Can happiness satisfy our feelings?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions

What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How it is related to pleasure?

- For Aristotle, happiness is part of a human nature and self realization. Its nature for human to havefeelings and happiness is the best among of all feelings. Thats why Aristotle emphasizes on that feeling.When we feel the happiness, its a pleasure for us because we feel unique about it. All human beingswant happiness. Every people who live here on earth can experience it. In relating to virtue, happiness isan expression of character. We are human with excellence characteristics. In relating to pleasure,happiness is also part of it. When we are happy, we pleasure it and we feel that our feeling is above ournormal feelings.

How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.

- He explains that moral virtue is a habit through expression and always thinks moral and intellectualside of a person. For example, if a person has a moral virtue, he/she thinks the positive, a negative. Hehas a courage and confidence to do a particular task but deep inside of him and in reality, he has a lack

of courage to overcome that challenge.

Is it possible for everyone on our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot behappy?

- In my opinion, everyone could be happy. We are human created by God and we have a freedomto do things in this world but the problem is if that happiness is good or bad. Thats my Christianperspective. On Aristotle side, its the same. We seek for happiness and that happiness can lead us to


18/26

pleasure. I believe that we can find happiness depending on what we see and hear. It is simultaneousevent that is happening around us.

Discussion Questions

Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life ofpleasure?

- I agree that Aristotle suited the life pleasure for a beast because it is powerful creature. Nothingcan control the beast because of its power. If anything went wrong in achieving pleasure, then I can saythat is a conflict that is happening to our lives. But remember, it is just temporary after all.

Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not?

- Aristotle arrives to that idea because he, himself is a philosopher. And he is happy on what is hedoing. Not only Aristotle, but other philosophers too. They love what they are doing therefore they canfeel the pleasure and passion in doing it. Actually all of us can be happy as I mentioned from the previousquestion. But if we are passionate like them, we can also feel what they feel. I strongly agree with thisbecause they have a profession. We can also achieve it by acquiring knowledge like the philosophers.

Then we will realize how happy they are.


19/26

Book Review: Joel Feinber: The Nature and Value of Rights




Quote:People in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly


1.) I must learn the basic principle of Nature and value of rights2.) Explain it in brief laymans term

3.) Human dignity issues?

Review:

Joel Feinberg started his essay by imagining a town that has totally no rights for the people. If a normalperson imagines it, its totally unpredictable, unbelievable, and miserable. How can a people live in thisparticular? Can he/she survive mentally and physically? Its unpredictable if we going to think it. We mustalso think for an experiment. For instance, you will go to that place with no human rights. The people willjust think of you as an insect. An insect that is very harmful to them. In short, you are a slave that can goanywhere in that town with no rights. Its very much miserable if you think it. But in reality, this town socalled Nowheresville is happening. It sounds ugly and negative to hear. It is a town with full ofnegligence and irresponsible people. It is a town where people dont believe in rights of other people.

He says that let the virtues of moral sensibility flourish. These explanations only means that let go on yourself-virtues and let them grow do the things that are right for other person. By doing this, your virtue isconsidered one of a kind because you know what is right and what is wrong. Also, when you have virtue,it will give an opportunity to other people to have equal rights to other people. Giving them a chance tohave rights is a very thanksgiving gift for those people who are considered slave. Joel Feinberg relatesthe nature and value of rights to Immanuel Kants so called moral worth. Moral worth is the certainty thata person has a moral virtue. In doing compassionate actions, the result will be a motivated actionswherein these actions are act in a good way that can influence other people. Keep doing these actions,and there will be a good nature and there is a value of rights between people.

Other philosophers are focused on the idea of moral claims. Let us define the word claim. In aphilosophical point of view, the rights are directed to claims. This essay explains the difference of therights and claims. The right is a kind of claim and claim is the contention of rights. It is somehow

connected but in a different approach, Claim is declaring something that is true in all ways and right isagreeing to one side. Through its definition, both of them are aiming for the truth. In aiming this aspect,our value of rights will be our top priority.


20/26

What Ive learned:

I learned the difference and similarities of right and claims. The right is in controlled by individuals mind.The decision of rights will depend on the thinking of a particular person whether to do or to continue aparticular act or not. Because of rights and claims, we will know the direction of our value of rights. It willlead us to authenticity which is a good part of our lives.

We must appreciate on what Joel Feinberg studied because Value of rights is a basic ethical concept thatevery human must have. We must eliminate the concept just like experimenting Nowheresville as a townwith no rights, we can make our own step in living life naturally with value of rights.


1. How did Joel Feinberg explains the duty of rights?2. Is the Nowheresville exist in reality?3. If we have no rights at all, we cannot do things we can? 4. How did the claim right explained?

5. Is Nowheresville are full of negligence in the society as experimental imagination?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world? Nowheresville is just like a slave place wherein there are no rights existed. Unlike

in our world, we have a freedom.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinbergsposition on this doctrine?

It all depends on the correlativity rights and duties made by people.3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert

work in Nowheresville?

The personal desert is hard to understand but it is something good.4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville

according to Feinberg?

Nowheresville has no rights.5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

Claim-rights is the rights that people should have. It is morally important becauserights give us power to be strength in all aspect.


1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?

Feinberg explains here the signs2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

Honestly, I have no idea about this. But you must claim it right whatever it is.


21/26

Book Review: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously




Quote:If a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.


I expect to learn why we need to take rights serious as possible?

What is the primary role of the government here?

Moral rights against their government?

Review:

Ronald Dworkin has a point of view in taking rights seriously. He started his essay by this condition, If apeople have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. It is considered as achallenge for those people who are not taking rights seriously. All of us have a freedom. Again, like whatIve said before, God created us with his own image and likeness and as a human, God included freedomas a part of our humanity. It is a very special gift that God gave to us. All we need to do is to appreciate it.We must be thankful because we have freedom. But the problem with freedom is that some people will tryto interfere. Interfering lives is an annoying thing. One example is that your parents always against to yourdecision. Of course, as a teenager, we have rights to do what is good for us. Yes, your parents are inmaking decisions for you because its for your own good but a time will come that you will complain thatthey are always right. How about your freedom? Does is exist? Thats the problem on the issue offreedom. They rule us, as they rule us, they interfere our own freewill. Its absurdity because it is our rightto have rights as a human.

So why take it seriously? It simply because we are humans created by God. We must be privileged totake that advantage as a human. We must fulfill our lives here on earth. Some say, live life to the fullest. Itis a good vision we have in our lives. Take advantage to it. And yes, we have freedom, a freedom, afreedom of rights. He stated here that even if the constitution were perfect, the majority left it alone. Sothis means that its up again to majority just like utilitarianism.

Rights are very important to us. Thats why the government governs our country. Since government have3 branches, they are responsible for us. Specifically in moral or ethical issues, the Supreme Court willhave a decision on it. The process must be procedural and based on court, congress and morality.

What Ive learned:

I learned how to take advantage of our freedom. Freedom is a very special gift from God. I mustappreciate it in any way that a freedom could be appreciated. Ill take advantage to it so that I will use myown will to help other people. I will use my own freewill in my own way to do good to other people. I mustbe serious of my freedom because it is my opportunity to express myself as a human. Thanks for theessay made by Ronald Dworkin, I was able to appreciate in taking rights seriously. His principle andessay are very much effective to people because people will know the importance of rights.


22/26


1. Why we must take rights seriously?2. How did the author portray the role of the government?3. What is act of faith?4. How philosophers did rejected the idea that citizens have rights apart from what the law

happens?5. How did he show the role of constitution legal and moral issues?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

The rights are having a correct opinion in an individual perspective.

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

The legal rights are all accepted by the government. Moral rights are all acceptedin an individual point of view. In legal rights, for example we have a right to votecandidate in an election. It is our commitment to our country. But as a citizen ofthat country, we must comply in the legal laws in that country. Moral rights on theother hand, are the rights of the people.

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

The models are legal and constitutional. Dworkin prefer a constitution4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

The controversial rights justification.


1. Does a person have aright to break the law? Why or why not?

Because it is constitutional, people have a right to break law because we are freeor liberal to break the law.

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mills utilitarianism?

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

Yes Kant will accept rights.


23/26

Book Review: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice


Library Reference: N/AAmazon Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-white/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_sim_b_2/185-6566170-6503008

Quote:

Rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil ignorance hidingfrom the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.


Expect to learn the idea of theory of justice.

Learn how justice can be applied to a government

Philosophy and Justice combined.

Review:

John Rawls described justice as a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance. It iscovering the good or bad about a case. But what is the true meaning of justice? To define justice in alaymans term, it is the fairness of both sides. Both sides have a good reason to defend their positions.The justice must be in a procedural form wherein it is based on the law created by constitution or otherconstitutional forms. If there is a case, it will primarily lead to initial investigation and this case will beevaluated in the court. The case seeks for a justice but it will depend on justice if it will be solvedimmediately or not. Another meaning of justice is that it carries higher level of abstraction. It is the highestposition of determining what the truth is.

He explained the principle of justice. He explained it in two parts. The first one is that each person is thave an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with others. This means that in general,we have rights as a human here on earth. It will now depend on us if we take it serious or not about it. Butwe all care about the so called equal right. All of us aim to achieve equal rights that have given to us.The question is how we can achieve it. Each individual would ask themselves if they are qualified to haverights. Obviously they are. Its just a matter on how would that person control his/her rights. If he/shewants to take it seriously, then he/she will find justice on his rights. The second explanation are portrayingon a macro level were social and economic aspects are involved. It is explained here that there areinequalities should be adjusted because it is expected to be everyones advantage. So that means, weshould adjust ourselves from justice because justice can dictate us whether we are right or wrong. Justiceis our basis if the truth happened.

The responsibility of justice is very much high prioritized because principles and basic structure of societyare dependent on it. The assignment of rights and duty is a must in the society. It should be accurate andconsistent as much as possible because each people who are involved here have a great responsibilityfor the society as well as in serving God.


24/26

What Ive learned:

I learned the basic principles of justice. Without this feature, our society will be tasteless in the eyes ofGod. Because God created us, with His whole heart and soul and provide us everything specificallyfreedom, it is a perfect time for us to return our gifts from Him. The best gift I think is to determine justice.Justice also serves as a gift from other people because justice is the highest form of knowing the truth.Also serves a protection from other. Because of this, we can determine the possible good for us people.


1. How John Rawls did portrayed justice?2. What are the two principles of justice?3. Is it true that we must prioritize justice?4. As a society, what we should maintain in order to keep justice alive? 5. Can we distribute opportunity for justice?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawlss conception of the original position.

He explains that the principles of justice.2. State and explain Rawlss first principle of justice.

The first principle is the equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty. Thedistribution of everything must be equal to give an opportunity to others.

3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot besacrificed?

The issue in economic inequalities of a particular country.


1. On the first principle, each person ahs an equal right to the most extensive basic libertyas long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allowpeople to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage inhomosexual activities as long as they dont interfere with others? Can people produceand view pornography if it does not restrict anyones freedom? Are people allowed totake drugs in the privacy of their homes?

Yes, indeed because we have freedom. Anything that is wrong in the general ruleof government or to God, people considering it right.

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different

principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldnt they agree to an equaldistribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, whywouldnt they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isnt socialism just as rational ascapitalism?

Yes, it is possible. It will depend on how people think about it.


25/26

Book Review: Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice




Quote:

The justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory.Learning Expectations

I expect to expand my information about justice.

How much people value justice?

Justice as a development of an individual person.

Review:

All of us must commit the value of justice. Just like the previews chapter, John Rawls said that we musttake our rights seriously and we must take that with our whole heart and soul because we are humansliving with rights. We have dignity in each eye of people. They respect us and we must respect them alsoas a return. So, this means that we have an equality to each other specifically equality of respect andjustice.

In this chapter. Annette Baier, the author of this essay, overlooks that justice has inequalities betweenpeople. She put this into analogy that people who have a power are represented as parent and other

people who have less power represented as child. In this case, we can see the inequality of the people tohave an opportunity to have rights and justice. Imagine how life is difficult without a rights or justice in thisworld. Its very difficult to live here because you as a person dont have enough knowledge in rights. It isalso described here that inequality is very unrealistic view of freedom of choice. When you dont have thatfreedom like I said before, you cant feel the love and care that people gave to you.

About the word care, this essay made special mention to it. It explains how care is important to eachone of us while living in this earth. Care is a felt concern for the good of others. But it is considered that itis not a new word for justice. It is actually included in the justice. Lets have an actual scenario; if one ofyour friends dies brutally, you and his/her family must seek for justice about his/her death, therefore, yourcare is involved there. You are really concerned for his/her death. The fact is, justice includes theemotional feelings of the person.

Lets focus now on how they describe justice per se. They described it as a little disagreement becausejustice and injustice have a different perspective. The justice is a social value of importance; on the otherhand, injustice is an evil side. This means that people considered justice as a good side because it cangive us enlightenment in our lives. We can seek the truth behind the issue. Unlike injustice, theres manyproblem with that and also can give lots of disadvantage and possibility of a miserable life.

We need justifications in life. Its part of our moral tradition. We must take the opportunity that life musthave justifications so that we can seek or reveal the truth while we are living. Earth has naturally had ajustice. The problem is that if people are willing to justify themselves for the sake of justifications.


26/26

What Ive learned:In conclusion, I learned how justice produces justifications. If we need to know something, people must justify it to make the truth out of it. Justifications must take it seriously because its one of the manysources whether your morality is right or wrong. I learned also that inequality of justice is very absurd forthe people because it gives us a miserable life without knowing the truth. Justice must be equal to all.That must be implemented specially for those who are less fortunate and has less power in the society.They have rights also to have a formal justice. They need more than about justice!


1. What is the meaning of unrealistic view of freedom?2. What are the difference of justice and injustice?3. How does inequalities of justice works?4. How people made importance to it?5. What does a care need for them?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

They must know the autonomy and control.2. Explain Kohlbergs theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of

this theory?

To affiliate the relationship, the identities are expanded to define more interconnection.Kohlbergs theories are more on moral development. Lot of criticism made by them. Oneof these criticisms is the empirical correlations in genders. It was not uniform to them.

3. Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What

are these differences? Looking at the equal relationship among people, relative weight of freedom, intellectual

vs. emotion.4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?

Simply because, she does not support the Kantian idea.


1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need to trans value the values of our patriarchalpast? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon the old values of justice,freedom, and right?

Yes, I think the old values can be replaced by new value simply because it is a newconcept. We keep on making new things that are good for us.

2. What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, includingwomen and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

The Kantian view for Baier was an not good. She keep relying on others perspective.

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose ourparent, but still dont we have freedom of choice about many things, and isnt this very important?

She rejected it because the idea was insufficient enough. We have freedom, but makesure that this freedom must put into limit so that we can use it correctly.

itethic - contemporary moral problems

Documents