contemporary moral problem book review

Contemporary Moral

Problem Book Review ITETHIC

John Paulo Cantancio

3/2/2009

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons

Attribution 3.0 Philippines License.

EGOISM AND MORAL SKEPTICISM James Rachel

Quote: “No one, it is commonly believed, would have such iron strength of mind as to

stand fast in doing right or keep his hands off other men’s goods, when he could go to

the market-place and fearlessly help himself to anything he wanted, enter houses and

sleep with any woman he chose, set prisoners free and kill men at his pleasure, and in a

word go about among men with the power of a god. He would behave no better than the

other; both would take the same course.”

Review:

James Rachele is a university professor of philosophy at the university of

Alabama at Birmingham. Rachele examines psychological egoism and ethical egoism,

two popular views used to attack conventional morality. Psychological egoism holds that

all human actions are self-interest, whereas ethical egoism says that all actions ought to

be self-interest. The legend of Gyges is one good example of egoism. In the real world,

I would do the same if ever I have the same powers as Gyges. But maybe I would not

last that long, because I was raised well by my parents and still have conscience in me.I

have learned the difference between ethical and psychological egoism. I also learn

about the different points of view of the author on how he viewed the situation.

I also learned the basic human nature of selfishness and greed. But it is not

always about selfishness. There are just times that people seem to think that way,

maybe for some reasons we really can’t understand. I also learned that egoist are rare

in our society not all of us are like them. We as human being, often think about others

1st before our self, or in some instance we think first of our self but think about others

next. But it is normal because we are given the freedom to choose what we want to do.

But still there are limit on what we must argue. If the egoist really doesn’t care about

others, then he just reach the limit. We as humans must also act accordingly to the

actions of an individual.

Integrative Question:

1. What are the 2 kinds of egoism?

2. Who is the author of this chapter?

3. What did the Gyges do?

4. If you were the Gyges, will you do the same?

5. Are you an egoist?

Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What question about morality are raised by the

story?

In the legend of Gyges a man is given the power to cloak. So the question is if you

that man will you do the same? Or if not what will you do? For me I believe in a

saying that “great power comes great responsibility” even if you have this kind of

power this doesn’t make you God. You still have the moral responsibility of helping

others. You should not only think about your self. Remember that in the end all of us

will be judged the same(in a Christian perspective)

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism is being selfish and only thinks of himself. He basically doesn’t

think before he acts and often thinks of himself as a unstoppable person. While the

ethical is some how for me is more less brutal because in some way he thinks why

will he do this or that? he somehow reasons out before he acts

3. Rachels Discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these

arguments, and how does he reply to them?

a. 1st argument : One is selfish and the other is unselfish. how can you

differentiate the 2? if for example helping his friend rather than going to

the country? he chooses to stay because that’s what he wanted to do. will

you call him unselfish if he did what he wanted to do? there are so many

points of view in this statement. one thing is what do he really wants to

do? is he oblige by the fact that he must help his friend despite the want to

go out of the country? in this case it is precisely called unselfishness.

Because he thinks of his friend 1st rather than what he really wants to do.

b. 2nd argument : Since so called unselfish actions always produce a sense

of self-satisfaction in the agent and since this sense of satisfaction is a

pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is

really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness rather than to bring

about any good for others. there for the action "unselfish" is only at a

superficial level of analysis. this only shows that all of us are selfish in

ways that we want to achieve that state of satisfaction. Like what

mr.Lincon did. He help the pig in order to get that state where in he don’t

need to think of that pig for the whole day and he did it for himself.

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

psychological egoism?

a. 1st confusion is selfishness with self interest - in this confusion it is stated

that doing something in your own interest. example is going to the doctor

when you feel bad or brushing your teeth. both are showing self interest

and involves behavior that ignores others.

b. 2nd confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from

self-interest or from other-regarding motives. - in this confusion one good

example is if the person knows the connection of smoking and cancer why

don’t he stop smoking? if he is selfish he must think of himself there for he

must stop smoking. But why don’t he stop?

c. 3rd confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s

own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of

others. – in this confusion we often made assumption that being selfish is

different from being unselfish because they are 2 different things. This is

for me is wrong because even the most selfish human will never know

when he will show unselfishness. It is inevitable.

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t

rachels accepts this arguments?

a. Being ethical is some how different because there are so many factors

affecting your decision and after you did it there will be some question

about it for example why? Or for whom? And other things. These

arguments will be more complicated if Rachels accepts it.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help

others? How can the egoist reply?

a. It is our moral obligation to not hurt other also we should help others. For

us it is an obligation given to us by God and there for must be done. While

in the egoistic point of view it seems that there is no limitation on their

obligation.

Discussion Questions

1. Has Rachels answer the question raised by Glaucon, namely “why be moral?” if

so what exactly is his answer?

a. For me he already answered the question when he said that “why should I

set fire to this department store?”.” because if you do many people will die

and get hurt” that is one answer.

2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care

about others, even people they don’t know?

a. I think it is rare. Most of the people now a days even those what so called

selfish people don’t think of them self most of the time. There will come a

time that, that person will not just think of himself anymore.

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the

benefits of the others and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral

or not?

a. I think its immoral because how can you help others if you cant help your

self. That’s one saying that tells us to start with our selves.

Religion, Morality and Conscience

By: John Arthur

Amazon.com: 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: “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine

omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more

appropriate to say that such things cannot be done than that God cannot do them”-

Thomas Aquinas

Review:

This chapter was written by John Arthur He talks about the Religion, Morality and

Conscience. What do we know about morality? Does morality needs religion? Or it is

just a social? In this chapter John Arthur discusses, and rejects, three ways morality has

been thought to depend on religion: that without the motivation or religion people could

not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide us guidance

and teaches us what really is the right and wrong.

Do we really need religion in order for us to learn what is right? I have read about

the different points of view and arguments that commence in this essay and for me I

think it is not. I come to think of it, why do people need religion any way? People needs

to have some motivation I agree which they find in religion. These are just some of my

comments that I formulated while I was reading thing essay. I have learned a lot about

that’s the difference of religion, morality and conscience. That morality is everywhere.

There are also some arguments that talks about morality as a social. It also teaches us

that morality plays a big role in our society, that without it there would be chaos all

around us. Morality is what binds us all, it is also the reason why we help others, putting

our self in their position and thinking first before we act. Religion, morality and

conscience are 3 words that makes us human beings.

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



1. Do people need religion?

2. Why do people think morality as social?

3. What Is morality?

4. What is conscience?

5. Why do we need to be moral?

Review Questions:

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

a. Morality is built unto us since then yet some time we don’t show it most of

the time. So we need religion in order for us to get motivated and improve

our selves.

2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?

a. It really depends on that person if he needs motivation or not. For example

if he know that if kills it will be taken against him. If he can motivate

himself to do good why need religion?

3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?

a. Different religion had different belief yet they the common thing is they

believe that there is a higher being in which they believe in, that’s why

they do things or act according on what they believe. If you believe that

there is someone that is more superior than you, and believe in that

concept you can teach yourself what to do.

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

a. In the divine command theory it is stated that God is the foundation of

morality that with out him there will be no morality. Arthur doesn’t believe

in this because he believes that morality is somehow human nature.

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

a. He believes that morality and religion somehow are connected because

they teach people what is right and wrong and it enables the person to

enhance those morality with the teaching of religion.

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

a. Arthur said that being moral needs conscience because we need to put

ourselves into the shoes of others. Before we act think first what that

person will feel and decide if you must do it or not.

Discussion Questions:

1. Divine command theory had been there ever since. People need someone to

believe in for them to do good. They also believe in the concept of when you give

or do good it would be given back ten folds. Having these commandment makes

us a better persons.

2. As human we have our duties to non-human because without them there will be

no humans. Even if they are not like us we still need to think of them as human.

3. Ethics is about doing the right thing. Education pupils with moral ethics is a must

in order for us to be more human and become less barbaric.

Utilitarianism

By: John Stuart Mill



Quote: “The ingredient of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in

itself” – John Stuart Mill

Review:

John Stuart Mill is one of the most respected British philosopher. In this chapter

he explains to us the what is the meaning of utilitarianism and the principle of utility.

Where in he said that life has no higher end than pleasure. He also explains that Utility

or happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. Which means we do

things because that’s what make us happy. As what Jesus of Nazareth told us “Love

your neighbor as you love your self” in Mills point of view this is a good example of

perfection of utilitarian morality. This points out that the happiness of an individual must

be in harmony with the interest of others.

He also points out that if a person wants something there are 2 ways that he

could end up, he could be happy by mere possession of it, or unhappy by failure to

achieve it. These philosophies can help us along as we grow up on what ever decisions

we make in our daily lives. Remember that we have our own decision to make and

these are just guide philosophies.


1. What is happiness?

2. Why be unhappy if you could be happy?

3. What are the 2 kinds of pleasure?

4. What is the pleasure?



5. Who is the writer of utilitarianism?

Review Questions:

1. State and explain the principle of Utility? Show how it could be used to justify

actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.

a. The principle of utility is based on the happiness of the majority. For

example what will the majority thinks about stealing or lying? If the

majority thinks that these two are wrong then it would be wrong.

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

of swine?

a. He said that the highest point in a human perspective is pleasure. Then

they must have done anything that would only pleasure them. That all of

the things that pleasure them is right.

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

a. Higher pleasure means that if ever you play a game that is more complex

than the other then you will have a higher quality of pleasure. While in the

other hand lower pleasure is like playing checkered than chess because

chess is more demanding than checkers but they both have pleasure in

playing it.

4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

a. Mill believed that for some persons "the need of excitement is a disease."

Rather, true human happiness consists in a give and take involving both

excitement and tranquility, both pleasure and pain.

5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility.

a. Mill states that people love virtue only because it constitutes a part of

happiness. Mill argues that happiness is not an abstract idea, but a whole

with component parts. Because virtue is a part of happiness, and

promotes the general happiness, utilitarianism encourages the

development of virtue.

Discussion:

1. For me happiness is both pain and pleasure. Because for me how can you know

that you are happy if you haven’t felt the pain. Absence of pain is inevitable

because there will come a time that one will suffer pain in his life time.

2. For me I think Mill is right about the higher pleasure. In some ways people have

the nature of excitement that they feel more pleasure if there is more complexity

in it.

3. For me its not. People got their own perspective and its not right to say what they

must do. Lets just let them decide what they really want.

4. For me I think its effective. Come to think of it, why do we work hard all day? Why

do we need to work anyway? For me we need to work hard in order for us to buy

those things that we need, to eat foods that we want and other things that

pleasures us. People move because they want pleasure and happiness in their

lives, so this is why I think it is effective.

Trying Our Ones New Sword

By: Mary Midgley



Quote: “ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself

accepts them” – Mary Midgley

Review:

In this chapter we will see how Mary Midgley explains the theory of “moral

isolationism”. This explains the different morals of different cultures. She said the “we

cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand”. How can you really explain what is

immoral? If what is immoral to you is moral to them? These are just some of the

questions that you will develop along the reading of this chapter.

Another argument is that how can we judge them if we can’t understand their

culture. That is why we need to know them first before we make opinions or judgments

to their culture or heritage. It is better if we just have to make good opinions so that they

can be motivated and be proud of their culture and heritage.

She also points out the ancient Japanese culture of trying out one’s new sword.

As what the title of this chapter is, she explains that a new katana must first be used in a

human to try if it will work well, so that if used in battle they won’t fail their ancestor and

the emperor. This is just one good example that Midgley explains that we cannot judge

other cultures morality.


1. What is a katana?

2. What culture uses tsujigiri?

3. Why cant we judge other culture?



4. Do different culture have different morality?

5. What do we call that barrier or cultures?

Review Questions:

6. What is “moral isolationism”?

a. It is forbidding us to interfere with other culture rather than where you came

from because you don’t know them and how can u criticize them if your not

one of them. He also said that it also forbids us to take critical position to any

other culture.

7. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What question does Midgley ask about the

custom?

a. Tsujigiri is a Japanese custom where in before using a new samurai one must

1st try it, because you must make sure that it is working properly well because

if not it may injure your reputation. For us we really don’t understand these

kind of things so we better not criticize it because we are not Japanese.

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

a. There are some questions about isolationism one is, if we live with them for a

short period of time? Are we credible to judge them? Criticize them? Or it will

take more than that to be able to do such thing?.

9. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other culture?

a. As Midgley said there is no close box. This only means that through out

history different culture criticize each other and learn from them. Comparing

their culture and others and try to adapt other things.

Discussion Question:

1. For me Midgley have no right to judge one persons work because she doesn’t

know the culture for which that person grew. Each has its own opinions, but if

ever you will make opinion on others work its better if it would be positive so that

there will be no conflicts.

2. For me it is unreal. This may be applicable before during the time of ancient

Japan. But now a days there has been what we so called globalization. Other

culture mixed with other culture and there for have the right to make an opinion

on both sides. Other is there has been some standards that had been set for us

to follow, that’s why it would be unreal not to criticize other culture.

The Need For More Than Justice

By: Annette Baier



Quote: “The best moral theory is the one that best harmonizes justice and care”

Review:

In this chapter Baier criticize the works of Rawls, Kant and Gilligan. She stated

that justice alone is not morally correct. She also stated that care alone is not evident

specially when it is just an option. She thinks that justice and care must be together in

order to formulate the right theory. She said that care being an option is not enough.

She also explains the importance of relationships specially child-parent relationship

where in justice is set aside and emotions arise.


1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how

do these perspectives develop?

a. Baier thinks that care and justice must be united. She thinks that justice is

inadequate as a moral theory as what is stated by Kant and Rawls. Also

the care perspective of Gilligan. She thinks that they overlooked the

inequalities between peoples relationship and set aside some emotions

such as love. Baier thinks that the best moral theory is the one that

harmonize justice and care.

2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticism do Giligan and

Baier make of this theory?



a. There are 3 stages according to Kohlberg. The first one is the pre-

conventional, which you try to please others. The second one is the

conventional where in you are already knowing the rules and standards

and try to follow them. The last one is the post-conventional where in they

tend to challenge or test the rules and standards they follow. Baier criticize

the Gilligan for putting the care as an option and not set as the minimum.

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

their critics. What are these differences?

a. The difference are the relative weight put on relationships between equals,

the relative weight put on freedom of choice, and on the authority of

intellect over emotions.

4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly

passions?

a. There are some instances that love overcomes reason like in parenthood.

Can a parent be just? If for example his son did something wrong and

must be punished. As a father it will be just fine because he is your son

and you love him.

Discussion:

1. It simply means to use the concept of patriarchals to defend the marginalized

people. New values replace the old ones but it does not necessarily mean that

we are to abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and rights

2. The thing that is wrong with the Kantian view is that it considers women and

minorities as ineligible to draft legislations and to vote.

3. Freedom of choice is very important because it is the essence of being a human,

having free will and to be able to decide for our own being.

The Debate Over Utilitarianism

By: James Rachelle



Quote: “the woman who worked harder has a superior claim to the promotion, not

because it promotes the general welfare for her to get it but because she has earned it”

– James Rachelle

Review:

In this chapter James Rachelle shows us the debate of the anti utilitarianism and

the utilitarianism. We will also see how each side defend its own believes and how they

explain their points of views. Rachelle believes in utilitarianism but he thinks that it

needs modifications. So many philosophers argue with this kind of philosophy some

even want this philosophy to be erased.

Also in this chapter we will know the difference between hedonism and

utilitarianism. How can we apply it in present situation and how your action is affected

by it. There are also some arguments that makes utilitarianism very vulnerable in some

situation testing if there philosophy is really the right thing to do. Rachels also explains

the addition of merits to utilitarian. That hard work should have corresponding merits.

There are so much in this chapter that you will know about the pros and cons of

each arguments. Every arguments have special corresponding answers and conclusion.


1. What is justice?

2. What is rights?



3. Are promises an obligation?

4. How can you weight in a situation?

5. What is merits?

Review Questions:

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three

propositions. What are they?

a. 1st, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their

consequences.

b. 2nd, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount

of happiness or unhappiness that is caused

c. 3rd, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no

one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

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

to this problem?

a. Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not

something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake .Right

actions, it says are the ones that produce the most good. But what is

good? The classical utilitarian reply is; one thing, and one thing only,

namely happiness.

3. What are the objection about justice, rights and promises?

a. Justice – what if lying is the right thing to do?(in a utilitarian point of

view)will you do it?

b. Rights – What if you violate ones rights?(in a utilitarian point of view the

majority is right and in this case their had been only one unhappy person

and 2 happy person. So is this the right thing to do?)

c. Promises – what if you promised your friend to meet in a particular place

at a particular time, but you still have work to do. What will you do? In a

utilitarian point of view what if doing the work will make him more happy?

Will you still meet him or not?

4. Distinguish between rule and act utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply

to the objections?

a. For rule utilitarianism, the correctness of a rule is determined by the

amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act

utilitarianism judge actions in terms of the goodness of their

consequences without reference to rules of action.

5. What is the third line of defense?

a. A small group of contemporary utilitarian has had a very different

response to the anti-utilitarian arguments point out that the classical theory

is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on; to

this, their response is essentially “so what”


1. For me it in no because moral beliefs as an individual had a root, and there are

many reasons why we believe such thing. Every individual has its own view point

of utilitarianism and he also got his own point. We should respect what ever

moral belief every have.

2. 1st of all we must consider non-human animals. We have been given this gift to

think and to care about others not only us human but also those non-human. We

have duties that we must consider in order to live.

3. Yes I do. I believe that merits must be given consideration because it tend to sum

up the hard work that an individual has done and it must be given consideration.

The categorical imperative

By: Immanuel Kant



Quote: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it

should become a universal law”

Review:

Immanuel Kant is a German philosophers and one of the most important

philosopher of all time. Kant believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one

supreme rule, which is the categorical imperative, from which all our duties can be

derived. In this chapter Kant talks about “The good will” and “Duty”. The good will is

doing something even if there is nothing in return. While the duty is doing something

that must be done because it is a must.

You will also learn different points of view and different versions of categorical

imperative. What are its advantage and disadvantages and why must we follow that

kind of setting. You also learn the meaning of self love which leads to some arguments

about it. Different scenarios will also show you how people seem to look at that

perspective and see what is the law of nature is all about.


1. What is categorical imperative?

2. What is Duty?

3. Is good will the same as duty?

4. What is the difference of Duty and Good Will?

5. What is Self Love?



Review Questions:

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will

a. Good will is to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which

can be taken as good without qualification. It is also considered to be the

only rule but many versions. They also constitute to the inner worth of the

person.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

a. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance: if I wish

to quench my thirst, I must drink something. A categorical imperative, on

the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that

asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an

end in itself

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative and explain how Kant

uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

a. Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not

tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person

making the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must have universality,

which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical

details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational

being. This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative, explain it.

a. Kant derives the second version from the first one. He concluded that

every rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an

end. The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as a

subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general.


1. For me they are both different because the 1st imperative talks only about self

love. While the second imperative, talks about self love but with additional

questions like “is it right?”. For me the second is better because it adds

conscience in it, where you do it or not the most important thing is you come

to think what is really the right thing.

2. I really don’t agree because what if your self interest is for others and you

don’t have duties for them then it is not moral. Duties are like laws we must

do because it is our obligation. It is not right to say that when you do

something that have nothing to do with the motive of duty then it will have no

moral worth.

3. For me I think it is a good criticism, because Kant did not explain well the

limitations of self love. Every person believes in different thing, what if you

found out that you are sick and have no possibility that you will survive so for

the sake of self-love then you will commit suicide. This is something that is

not right. So I think it is a good criticism.

Taking Rights Seriously

By: Ronald Dworkin



Quote: “if a person have the rights to do something and it is wrong to interfere with

them”

Review:

In this chapter Ronald Dworkin talks about the rights of a person but in a strong

sense, which means it is “ a must”. We will also learn about the rights of a person and

laws of the government. On how to exercise these rights and how can there be harmony

between the rights of a person and the law of the government.

Dworkin also talks about the two kinds of rights. One is the moral rights where in

it is about the conscience and religious beliefs. The other one is about the legal rights

that are made by the law makers the a person must follow.

Dworkin also talks about the two forms of government and what are their

advantage and disadvantages. There are also some good examples of rights like the

rights of freedom of speech, where in there are some arguments whether the

government have the right to stop it or not.


1. What is Freedom of speech?

2. What is a government?

3. What is moral rights?

4. What is legal rights?

5. Who make the law?



Review Questions:

1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in the sense

are protected by the U.S Constitution?

a. The government don’t have the right to interfere against the right of the

other. For example the government don’t have the right to interfere against

someone who is talking because there is what is so called freedom of

speech except if it is against another rights.

2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give examples of legal rights that are

not moral and moral that are not legal.

a. Legal rights are those rights that are written in the constitution and there

for we must follow it. While the moral rights are our rights that are not

written.

For example honor your mother and your father. This is for us Christians is

a moral rights but there is no law regarding that you must honor your

mother and you father

Another example is trespassing. There is a law which tells us that

trespassing is a crime. But in morality there is no such thing as

trespassing.

3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its

citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?

a. The model talks about the balance between public interest and personal

interest. Which for Dworkin opinion is false. While the second model talks

about the political equality. Which talks about every person even if he is

weak must have the same respect and concern like those powerful

members.

4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of

rights?

a. The first one is about the individual rights on the person. Where in it tells

us that each of us is as important as the other person because each of us

have the same rights. Another one is the majority rights, where in we must

look at a bigger picture of the situation where in the majority must be

followed.


1. Yes, a person can break the law if it is against his rights. One good example is

during the time of EDSA people power. People are violating the law because

they think that the law is violating their rights.

2. In some ways it is compatible because of the majority aspect of both

utilitarianism and the rights. Both are based on the majority of the people.

3. For me it is yes because according to Kant you must do the right thing and

invoke some conscience in doing it. it like the rights of a person, if that particular

person thinks that what he is doing is the right thing then he must do it.

Master and Slave Morality

By: Friedrich Nietzsche



Quote: “He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one” – Friedrich

Nietzsche

Review:

This chapter was written by Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900). He was a German

philosopher and poet who is often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and

deconstructionism. In this chapter the author is trying to defend about the Master and

Slave morality where in the “Master” or the superior individual must exercise its “will to

power”. This kind of mentality is present during the ancient days of kings and queens.

During those times there are just 2 kinds of people, the master and those who are

slaves. This kind of mentality is still present now a day but not as brutal as before. Now

the masters that he talks about are those company owners or people that have the

power.

While I was reading this chapter I come to think of it. Why do we really need to

be fair with one another if we got power or money? But why do people let themselves to

be slaves? There are arguments distracting my mind while reading this essay. There

had been so many conflicts. As I go along the paragraphs in the essay I learned the

different views and opinions of the author and those arguments or why and why not? I

also discover that being the master does not mean that you have to be arrogant to your

slaves. Being a master comes the responsibilities and duties of morality. As what they

always say, in every part of our society there must be morality.




1. What is will to power?

2. Where do Friedrich Nietzsche live?

3. What are the 2 kinds of people according to Friedrich?

4. What part of the society are the master?

5. What part of the society are the slaves?

Review Questions:

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

a. He said that a good and healthy society must exercise the master morality

for the rich and powerful and the slave morality for those who are weak

and poor.

2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation?

a. Nietzsche said that injury, violence and exploitation are the fundamental

principle of society. He also said that these are standard of life and every

one must learn how to deal with it.

3. Distinguish between master morality and slave morality.

a. He said that there are certain standard when dealing with “master

morality” and also in “slave morality”. When you are a superior person you

have to act as master there for learn to be more charismatic and learn

how to handle those people under you. When you are a inferior person

learn how to follow commands and be more down to earth.

4. Explain the will to power?

a. The will to power is that every specific body strives to become master of

all but you will encounter other people with the same philosophy and

unites to gain more power.

Discussion Questions :

1. For me his philosophy is justified as Nazism. He thinks of will of power all of the

time and for him he there are 2 kinds of people those who are superior and

inferior. As Christians all of us must have the same rights provided by law so that

all of the people can have a life

2. A creator of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of

one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid.

Happiness and Virtue

By: Aristotle



Quote: “”

Review:


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

related to pleasure?

a. Happiness for Aristotle is somehow not for honor, pleasure or anything

else but for the sake of itself. We are doing such things for the sake of our

own happiness. Happiness and virtue makes no big difference. We make

such things even if we know that it will make no good. Just for the “its

sake”. Pleasure is somehow connected to happiness in the sense of

satisfying our self. Conflicts occurs because sometimes it is just not by

nature pleasant but as an adventure charm,

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.

a. The moral virtue is a mean and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean

between two vices, the one involving excess, and the other as a

deficiency, and that is such because its characteristic is to aim at what is

intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. A

person with the virtue of obedience. People seem to be obedience

because they know that there will some consequence in a way of failure if



they did not do it. It is up to them how will they accept the fact that they

failed.

3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If

not, who cannot be happy?

a. As my understanding, it is possible that all people is happy but if we will

include the creatures or creation by God then I do not think so it is

possible that all creatures will be happy. In the reading, it states that “by

the fact that the other animals have no share in happiness, being

completely deprived of such activity. I think those creatures by God that

incapable of the virtuous activities are those who cannot be happy.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1 . A life of pleasure is irresistible yet many consequences. For example if you haven’t

felt the pain and failure. how can you be able to get thru those kind of obstacles. We as

human must feel not just pleasure but also failure. that’s why we are called human

being because we have the power to think and to act accordingly to what is needed.

2. I don’t agree, they can’t say that they have more knowledge that they are happier

than anyone else. Many people have different opinions about happiness and different

ways how to become happy. Most philosophers view it that the more you know the

happier you will be. For me it is not like, because for me happiness have different

criteria and to be happy you must have those different criteria and there for you will be

happy.

A Theory of Justice

By: John Rawls



Quote: “injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all”

Review:

In this chapter John Rawls talks about justice and its 2 basic principle. Rawls

bring up some arguments that need intellectual thinking and justification. The 1st one is

about the equal liberties of all. This means that we must have the same rights and is

just if we don’t interfere with the rights of others. Rawls made an example of freedom of

speech, this right must be practice by all of us but there are some instances that before

we practice we must 1st ask permission because we may be interfering with others. The

2nd principle is the inequality when it comes to politics and business. For me this is

eminent in our society today. For example in the military there is what you call chain of

command. Come to think of it how can we be equal if there are people above us? For

me we need this in order to lead us in the right way, and it is also stated that this is valid

if it is for our advantage.


1. What for you is the meaning of justice?

2. What is the meaning of equal liberties?

3. Is freedom of speech part of our liberties?

4. If we are equal then why is there such thing as chain of command?

5. What will be our limitation in what you so called equal liberties?



Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawls’ conception of the origin position?

a. The origin of position as Rawl explains is the hypothetical condition

wherein the citizens of in that world is under the veil of ignorance, they

have no idea of their skills, intellect, and social status. He used this origin

of position to explain how justice as fairness could be achieved.

2. State and explain Rawls’ first principle of justice.

a. The 1st principle explains about the equal basic liberties. Which means

equal in rights for example right to vote, freedom of speech and other

things that ever person must have. The first principle also explains that

fairness is a must in our society.

3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it

cannot be sacrificed?

a. The 2nd principle explains about the arrangement of social and economical

inequalities. Which means there are some instances that inequality is

evident for example is the chain of command, authority etch. But Rawls’

explain that inequality is just if it is for the benefit of all. For example is the

authority, if there are no authorities who will prevent you from doing wrong

then I think it will be chaotic.

Discussion:

1. On the first principle there are limitations and some of this are the rules

imposed by our government and our religion. One good example is

engaging in homosexual activities, in other countries that religion is not

that important to them homosexual activities are just fine. There are

even places where same sex marriage are not a violation. While for

those using drugs, maybe you are using it in your very homes in some

private places but if you will view it in a bigger picture it can affect the

community in a big way. Such examples are those pregnant women

that are addictive to drugs, they don’t think anymore the most

important thing for them is to take some dosage. What if all of us are

like that then there will be chaos.

The Nature and Value of Rights

By: Joel Fienberg



Quote: “all duties are correlated with the rights of those to whom the duty is owed”

Review:

In this chapter Feinberg wants us to imagine a placed named Nowheresville

where non of us has a right. There is no rights to violate because there is non. So

Feinberg wants us to imagine a place where in there is no limit on what you can do to a

particular person because there is nothing to stop you. Just imagine how inconvenience

and violence that world can be.

Feinberg wants us to learn the importance of rights to out daily lives and what are

their limitations. He also wants us to reflect on the morality of some particular situations

because along the way. Feinberg will add piece by piece some duties, rights and the

presence of God. This is a good experiment because you can really reflect on the

situation and ask your self. What if?


1. What is Nowheresville?

2. What is rights?

3. Who is the author of The nature and value of rights?

4. What are duties?

5. What is the difference of Duties and rights?



Review Questions:

1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?

a. It is a place where in there are no rights. It is a world where in every one

can’t justify themselves because they’ve got no right to lean on. It is an

ugly place to live in. this is the complete opposite of our world. Without

rights people seem to abuse their power and go over the moral obligation.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is

Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?

a. This is the doctrine that all duties entail other peoples rights and all rights

entail other peoples duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged

entailment from duties to rights, need concern us here. Feinberg tend to

believe that in some sense yes and some no. He further explain that duty

comes from the word due which means. That it simply tells us that we

must do it. He told us that all duties are correlated with the rights of those

to whom the duty is owed.

3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal

desert work in Nowheresville?

a. To deserve something good is for there to be “a certain propriety” in your

receiving it, a propriety based either on the kind of person you are or on

some specific thing that you’ve done. This sort of “propriety” is “a kind of

fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s

favorable response, much like that between humor and laughter, or good

performance and applause.

4. Explain the sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in nowheresville?

a. In order to escape the state of nature, men make a covenant among

themselves to transfer their right of nature to a single entity who will

thereby have the legitimate authority to enforce covenants. This will be

like dictatorship where in all the powers will be put upon one person only.

The outcome will depends on how that person will lead them.

5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

a. To have a right is to have a claim against someone whose recognition as

valid is called for by some set of governing rules or moral principles. To

have a claim in turn, is to have a case meriting consideration, that is, to

have reasons or grounds that put one in a position to engage in formative

and propositional claiming.

Discussion questions:

1. Yes because he made a realistic approach by making an imaginary world where

in at first there are no rights and there for no justice. After he added different

duties and different rights and see how the community will be. This is one good

way of experimenting how people will act depending on what rights are there.

2. The activity of claiming, finally, as much as any other thing, makes for self-

respect and respect for others, and gives a sense to the notion of personal

dignity

SOURCE White, J. E. CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS (SEVENTH EDITION).

Amazon.com:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-




NATIONAL LIBRARY OR AND CLAIM STUB

USE CASE EXISTING

USE CASE NARRATIVE

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION SYSTEM USE

CASE NARRATIVE

ACCOMPLISH COPYRIGHT FORM Identification summary

Title: Accomplish Copyright Form

Summary: This use case allows the applicant to fill-in the needed information on the form

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff

Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???

Version: ??? Person in Charge:

Flow of Events

Preconditions:

1. The National Library should be open

2. The material that to be copyrighted is finished

3. There should be an applicant

Main Success Scenario:

1. The applicant gets an application form from the Copyright office

2. Then the applicant should fill-in the information on the form

3. The applicant should purchase a stamp

4. The affidavit should be notarized

5. The applicant gives back the form to the Copyright office

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant already has a form

1. The applicant has already completed a form which is downloaded from the Library’s

site

2. The applicant should proceed in purchasing a stamp

Error Sequences:

1. The affidavit hasn’t been notarized

a. The affidavit isn’t notarized because there is no notary public available

b. Use case ends

2. There is no stamp to be purchased

a. There are no stamps available in the store

b. Use case ends

3. There is no form to be given

a. There are no forms to be given to the applicant

b. Use case ends

PAY COPYRIGHT FEE Identification summary

Title: Pay Copyright Fee

Summary: This use case allows the applicant to pay the copyright fee needed to proceed in

registering

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff, Cashier



Flow of Events

Preconditions:

1. The cashier should be open

2. The copyright office is still open

3. The applicant should have a filled-up form


1. The copyright staff signs the form and indicates the amount to be paid

2. The applicant pays the copyright fee to the cashier

3. The cashier issues a receipt to the applicant


1. There are some fields needed to be filled-up

1. The applicant has left a blank field

2. The applicant fills up the blank and submits the form back to the copyright staff

Error Sequences:

1. The cashier is closed

a. The cashier closed before the applicant could pay the copyright fee

b. Use case ends

FILE COPYRIGHT REQUEST Identification summary

Title: File Copyright Request

Summary: This use case allows the applicant to file a copyright request to the copyright office




Flow of Events

Preconditions:

1. The material should have two copies

2. The applicant have paid the copyright fee

3. The form is verified by the copyright staff


1. The applicant submits the form, material, and receipt to the copyright staff

2. The copyright staff files the form and material to be copyrighted

3. The copyright staff returns the receipt with a claim stub to the applicant


1. The applicant has only one copy of the material

1. The applicant has one copy of the material

2. The applicant should provide one more copy of the material

Error Sequences:

1. The copyright office is already closed

a. The copyright office is already closed when the applicant returned

b. Use case ends

ASK COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Identification summary

Title: Ask Copyright Information

Summary: This use case allows the applicant to ask for information from the copyright staff




Flow of Events

Preconditions:

1. The copyright staff should be present

2. The national library should be open


1. The applicant asks a question to the copyright staff

2. The staff answers the applicant


1. The applicant has another question

1. The applicant asks another question to the copyright staff

2. The staff answers the applicant

Error Sequences:

1. The copyright staff is not present

a. The applicant goes in the copyright office and the copyright staff is not present

b. Use Case ends

ACTIVITY DIAGRAM EXISTING:

Accomplish Copyright Form

Pay Copyright Fee:

File Copyright Request:

Ask Copyright Information:

PROPOSED USED CASE DIAGRAM

contemporary moral problem book review

Documents