contemporary moral problems (chapter 1)

CONTEMPORARY MORAL

PROBLEMS

James E. White

Cristine Camille Valenzona

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism and Moral Scepticism (Chapter 1)

AMAZON LINK: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306

QUOTATION: “But why shouldn’t I do actions that will harm other?”

LEARNING EXPECTATIONS:

- I want to have deep knowledge what is egoism all about.

- I want to learn the different views to attack the conventional morality.

- I want to know how I can defend morality in terms of egoism.

REVIEW:

In this section I become familiar to the legend of Gyges and become interested on what happened.

Based on the book, Contemporary Moral Problems, discussed by Rachels, in the legend of Gyges, it states

that there is a shepherd where in he found a magic ring in a fissure opened through an earthquake. The

rings when wear will give you invisibility power and enable anyone who wear it go anywhere and do

anything undetected by anyone. Gyges, shepherd who found out the ring, used the power to enter the

Royal Palace where he seduced the Queen, murdered the King and seized the throne.

I just become confused why there are people who tried to do things like these. I think it is immoral in

my personal view because to gain the power and throne he need to do bad things which is really a

neglected behavior in my personal assumptions because I believe things can become yours in a good way.

I cannot blame that shepherd, assuming the present King is really an abusive King, because in this

instance he thinks it can be a revenge and thinks that it is still good to have the power because he can

relate the state of other shepherd so he have this notion in mind that it is really better that he will rule

the land because he knows what the people lower social level experiences in the power of other.

In this section there are many points that Rachels discussed such as the difference of ethical egoism

and psychological egoism, the argument with the psychological egoism, the three common place of

confusion in the psychological egoism and the argument that ethical egoism is inconsistent.

I really appreciate how Rachels discuss each point to understand how really people can understand

the egoism and how can people will give their reaction on their views if it is either moral or immoral.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED:

- Egoism exists in the earlier era.

- People tend to care even to people they don’t know.

- The difference between the ethical egoism and psychological egoism.

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS:

1. Who is Gyges?

2. What are the sceptical views of egoism?

3. What are the different arguments on psychological egoism?

4. What are the commonplaces of confusion in psychological egoism?

5. Why Smith derives satisfaction from helping his friend?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

In the legend of Gyges, it states that there is a shepherd where in he found a magic ring in a fissure

opened through an earthquake. The ring when wear will give you invisibility power and enable anyone

who wear it go anywhere and do anything undetected by anyone. Gyges, shepherd who found out the

ring, used the power to enter the Royal Palace where he seduced the Queen, murdered the King and

seized the throne.

The questions raised about morality in the story are to determine the two different rings given to a

man of virtue and given to a rogue. Why shouldn’t a man simply do what he pleases, or what he think is

best for himself? What reason is there for him to continue being moral when it is clearly not to his own

advantage to do so?

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the

only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest. Ethical egoism is a normative view about how

men ought to act.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does

he reply to them?

The first argument about psychological egoism is “If we describe one person’s action as selfish, and

another person’s action, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is

done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do.”

The second argument about psychological egoism is “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.

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

The three commonplace confusions detects by Rachels are the confusion of selfishness with self-

interest, assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other regarding motives

and assumption that a concern for one’s welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare

of others.

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

argument?

There is no inconsistency because the ethical egoism does not apply to all scenarios. There can be

sometimes a conflict with what you desire and the welfare of other people, but I can say that it varies on

the people involved in the scenario. Sometimes, we based our decision regarding the decision of people

close to the circle of ourselves. In this way, we are not selfish because we are still considering other

people.

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

egoist reply?

If he honestly doesn’t care whether they are helped or hurt by his actions then we have reached

those limits. If we want to persuade him to act decently toward his fellow humans, we will have to make

our appeal to such other attitudes as he does possess, by threats, bribes, or other cajolery.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If no, what exactly is

his answer?

Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, “Why be Moral?” because he explains his opinions

that there are reasons why we should not hurt other and why should we help others.

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

they don’t know?

Based on what I have read, Rachel claims those genuine egoists are rare because based on my

observation in the society there are still people who are resulting to helping each other even people they

do not know. It is a fact that most people care about others even people they don’t know because even a

people who are emotionally depressed, there will be instance that his heart will soften and care about

other people. No doubt of it because I mostly observed it in the culture of the country.

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

never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

I think in this scenario, it still varies because it depends on how a person considers this scenario either

an immoral or moral. I believe that we have different basis of morality and immorality because of our free

will.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Religion, Morality, and Conscience (Chapter 2)


QUOTATION: “Religion is necessary so that people will DO right.


- I want to learn the difference between morality and religion.

- I want to distinguish the reason why morality and religion is in the notion that religion is morality.

- I want to know the divine command theory.

REVIEW:

Religion and Morality really differs. According to this section, written by John Arthur, religion is not

always connected to morality. As Arthur defines morality is the tendency people evaluate or criticize the

behavior of others, or to feel remorse about their own behavior. It involves our attitudes toward various

forms of behavior (lying and killing, for example), typically expressed using the notion of rules, rights, and

obligations. However, religion involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional

forms, and authoritative texts.

Another good topic discussed in this section is the divine command theory. According to Mortimer,

the divine command theory means that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature

has to statutes it enacts: without God’s commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a

legislature there would be no statutes. Also that only by assuming God sits at the foundation of morality

can we explain the objective difference between right and wrong.

Dewey, according to Arthur, says Morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on

socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others, and governs our interactions with

others in society. But it also demands, as Dewey put it, that we know “with” others, envisioning for

ourselves what their points of view would require along with our own. Conscience demands we occupy

the positions of others.

This section is entirely about religion, morality and conscience. I just realize that moral education is

not only possible but essential. Now I know why this class is essential to our curriculum not only to be

oriented to the different issues in the society but also to determine the right and wrong to scenarios in

the society.


- Religion and morality have differences but still similarities still exist.

- Morality is social.

- Divine command theory is essential to understand especially if you do not have any religion to believe in.


1. Who is John Arthur?

2. What are the similarities of religion and morality?

3. What are the differences of religion and morality?

4. What is the role played by religion in morality?

5. What is morality?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Morality is the tendency people evaluate or criticize the behavior of others, or to feel remorse about

their own behavior. It involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior (lying and killing, for

example), typically expressed using the notion of rules, rights, and obligations.

Religion involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms, and

authoritative texts.

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

Moral motivations can stand without the religion because the religious motives are far from the only

ones people have. In order to make a decision to do the right thing is made for a variety of reasons. Also,

we were raised to be a decent person, and that’s what we are. Behaving fairly and treating others well is

more important than whatever we might gain in our bad deeds.

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

Religion is not necessarily a source of moral knowledge because we need to know about religion and

revelation in order for religion to provide moral guidance. Also, the confusion of to whom of those God of

different religion that exist to follow or to believe on to have moral guidance is still another factor for not

necessarily considering religion as a moral knowledge.

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

According to Mortimer, the divine command theory means that God has the same sort of relation to

moral law as the legislature has to statutes it enacts: without God’s commands there would be no moral

rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statutes. Also that only by assuming God sits at the

foundation of morality can we explain the objective difference between right and wrong.

Arthur says “I think, in fact, theists should reject the divine command theory. One reason is what it

implies. To adopt the divine command theory therefore commits its advocate to the seemingly absurd

position that even the greatest atrocities might be not only acceptable but morally required if God were

to command them.

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

Morality and religion is connected through the historical influence of religions have had on the

development of morality as well as on politics and law.

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

Dewey, according to Arthur, says Morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on

socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others, and governs our interactions with

others in society. But it also demands, as Dewey put it, that we know “with” others, envisioning for

ourselves what their points of view would require along with our own. Conscience demands we occupy

the positions of others.


1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defined?

Arthur refuted the divine command theory in the sense that he rejects this believe and encourage

other people to not believe on it. He tries to state the different weaknesses of the divine command theory

rather than the advantage of it. He focuses on the side of the negative aspect of the divine command

theory.

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligation to nonhuman animals?

(Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solution to it in footnote 6.)

To have any obligation to nonhuman animals, prevent torturing animals; rest on sympathy and

compassion while human relations are more likely resting on morality’s inherently social nature and on

the dictates of conscience viewed as an assembly of others.

3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethic class count as moral education?

Moral education is both actual and imagined in which morality cannot exist without the broader,

social perspective introduced by others, and this social nature ties it. Private moral reflection taking place

independently of the social world would be no moral reflection at all; and moral education is not only

possible, but essential.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Master- and Slave-Morality (Chapter 3)


QUOTATION: “Everywhere slave-morality gains ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the

meanings of the words ‘good’ and ‘stupid’.”


- I want to learn the difference between master morality and slave morality.

- I want to know a good and health society.

- I want to understand deeper knowledge of Will Power.

REVIEW:

In this chapter, it discusses that Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow superior

individuals to exercise their “will to power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the

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

freedom, as distinguished from a “slave-morality” that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and

love.

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that

of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary

conditions are given.

The superior person follows a “master-morality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and


love.

According to Nietzsche the goal of Will to Power is essentially engaged in the preservation and

enhancement of itself: The Will wills itself. Thus the Will to Power is essentially an activity of interpreting

aimed at preserving and enhancing life itself. This is Nietzsche's notion of Will to Power.

I think people will really think differently because it somehow differs on how they attack cases like

these. I am not amazed that there are people who accept and reject those writing of Nietzsche. In my own

opinion, I think it is justifiable because there are factors why those writing of Nietzsche have been

formulated.

A creator of values has heroic individualism that makes a person an over man. He will be the creator

of master morality and the likes. He honors whatever he recognizes in himself; such morality is self-

glorification.


- I have learned that the creator of values is the creator of master morality.

- I can explain the master-morality and slave-morality.


1. Who is Friedrich Nietzche?

2. What is slave-morality?

3. What is master-morality?

4. What is the difference of slave-morality and master-morality?

5. What is the similarity of slave-morality and master-morality?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their “will to

power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a

“master-morality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as distinguished from a “slave-

morality” that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and love.

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

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that

of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary

conditions are given.

3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality?

The superior person follows a “master-morality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and


love.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

According to Nietzsche the goal of Will to Power is essentially engaged in the preservation and

enhancement of itself: The Will wills itself. Thus the Will to Power is essentially an activity of interpreting

aimed at preserving and enhancing life itself. This is Nietzsche's notion of Will to Power.


1. Some people view Nietzsche's writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have

charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?

I think people will really think differently because it somehow differs on how they attack cases like

these. I am not amazed that there are people who accept and reject those writing of Nietzsche. In my own

opinion, I think it is justifiable because there are factors why those writing of Nietzsche have been

formulated.

2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?

A creator of values has heroic individualism that makes a person an over man. He will be the creator

of master morality and the likes.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Trying Out One’s New Sword (Chapter 4)


QUOTATION: "The power of judgment is not a luxury, not perverse indulgence of the self righteous."


- I want to know the relationship of the sword in this section.

- I want to understand the concept of moral isolationism.

- I want to further deepen knowledge on what are the things that I need to know in different aspect of

moral issues.

REACTION:

Moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we

do not understand. It is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning. It

falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of

many influences.

Tsujigiri is a word which literally means crossroads-cut. In the Japanese customs tsujigiri is a samurai

sword had to be tried because if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow,

from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Other wise the warrior bungled his stroke. This could endure his

honor offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor.

Midgler ask the question “Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures

equally unable to criticize us?” about the tsujigiri.

Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that

we don’t understand them.

Ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them. If I have

seen a person on the way she/he acts and moves then I can simply criticize what is his/her culture

because I think the things you do describes where you came from.

Moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Immoralists like Nietzsche are

actually just a rather specialized sect of moralists. They can no more afford to put moralizing out of

business than smugglers can to abolish customs regulations. The power of moral judgment is not a luxury,

not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteous. It is a necessity.


- I learned the doctrine of immoralism connected with moral isolationism.

- I become familiarize with the Japanese culture of tsujigiri.

- I distinguish the different points in moral isolationism.


1. What is Moral Isolationism?

2. What is Japanese custom of tsujigiri?

3. What is judgment?

4. What is the question asked by Midgler?

5. Why does Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

Moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we

do not understand. It is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning. It

falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of

many influences.

2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What question does Midgley ask about this custom?

Tsujigiri is a word which literally means crossroads-cut. In the Japanese customs tsujigiri is a samurai

sword had to be tried because if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow,

from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Other wise the warrior bungled his stroke. This could endure his

honour offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor.

Midgler ask the question “Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures

equally unable to criticize us?” about the tsujigiri.

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

Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that

we don’t understand them.

4. What does Midgley think is basis for criticizing other cultures?

Ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them. If I have

seen a person on the way she/he acts and moves then I can simply criticize what is his/her culture

because I think the things you do describes where you came from.


1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why

or why not?

Moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Immoralists like Nietzsche are

actually just a rather specialized sect of moralists. They can no more afford to put moralizing out of

business than smugglers can to abolish customs regulations. The power of moral judgment is not a luxury,

not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteous. It is a necessity.

2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain

your answer.

I disagree with what Midgley’s claim with the idea of separate and unmixed culture is unreal. In our

country, there are people who are considered mixed and unmixed which are really an essential way to

represent their selves, where they belong.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Utilitarianism (Chapter 5)


QUOTATION: "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole."


- I want to know about utilitarianism.

- I want to understand the concept of principle of utility.

- I want to further deepen knowledge on what are the things that I need to know in different aspect of

moral issues.

REACTION:

Principle of utility is to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more

valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as

well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone. Proposes

that all punishment involves pain and is therefore evil; it ought only to be used so far as it promises to

exclude some greatest evil.

The charged could not be gainsaid, but would then no longer imputation; for if the sources of

pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for

the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beast is felt a

degrading, precisely because a beast pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness.

According to the author If he was asked what he mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what

makes one pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than the other, merely as pleasure,

except it’s being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures if there be one to

which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling

of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the mere desirable pleasure.

Happiness is not an obstacle idea, but a concrete whole; and these are some of its parts. And the

utilitarian standard sanctions and approves their being so. Life would be poor thing, very ill provided with

source of happiness, if there were not this provision of nature, by which things are originally indifferent,

but conductive to, or otherwise associated with the satisfaction of our primitive desire, becomes in

themselves sources of pleasures both in a permanency in the space of human existence that they are

capable of covering and even in intensity.

Mill defines "happiness" to be both intellectual and sensual pleasure. He argues that we have a sense

of dignity that makes us prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual ones. He adds that the principle of utility

involves assessing an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent. Mill

argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for generating secondary moral principles,

which promote general happiness. Thus most of our actions will be judged according to these secondary

principles. He feels that we should appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a

moral dilemma between two secondary principles.

Mill's proof for the principle of utility notes that no fundamental principle is capable of a direct proof.

Instead, the only way to prove that general happiness is desirable is to show man's desire for it. His proof

is as follows: If X is the only thing desired, then X is the only thing that ought to be desired. Thus if general

happiness is the only thing desired, therefore general happiness is the only thing that ought to be desired.

Mill recognizes the controversy of this and therefore anticipates criticisms.


- I learned the principle of utility.

- I have examined the different views of Mill about utilitarianism.


1. What is Principle of Utility?

2. What is Happiness?

3. What is lower pleasure?

4. What is higher pressure?

5. What is 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.

Principle of utility is to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more

valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as

well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone. Proposes

that all punishment involves pain and is therefore evil; it ought only to be used so far as it promises to

exclude some greatest evil.

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

The charged could not be gainsaid, but would then no longer imputation; for if the sources of

pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for

the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beast is felt a

degrading, precisely because a beast pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness.

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

According to the author If he was asked what he mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what

makes one pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than the other, merely as pleasure,

except it’s being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures if there be one to

which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling

of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the mere desirable pleasure.

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

Happiness is not an obstacle idea, but a concrete whole; and these are some of its parts. And the

utilitarian standard sanctions and approves their being so. Life would be poor thing, very ill provided with

source of happiness, if there were not this provision of nature, by which things are originally indifferent,

but conductive to, or otherwise associated with the satisfaction of our primitive desire, becomes in

themselves sources of pleasures both in a permanency in the space of human existence that they are

capable of covering and even in intensity.

Mill defines "happiness" to be both intellectual and sensual pleasure. He argues that we have a sense

of dignity that makes us prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual ones. He adds that the principle of utility

involves assessing an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent. Mill

argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for generating secondary moral principles,

which promote general happiness. Thus most of our actions will be judged according to these secondary

principles. He feels that we should appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a

moral dilemma between two secondary principles.

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

Mill's proof for the principle of utility notes that no fundamental principle is capable of a direct proof.

Instead, the only way to prove that general happiness is desirable is to show man's desire for it. His proof

is as follows: If X is the only thing desired, then X is the only thing that ought to be desired. Thus if general

happiness is the only thing desired, therefore general happiness is the only thing that ought to be desired.

Mill recognizes the controversiality of this and therefore anticipates criticisms. A critic might argue that

besides happiness, there are other things, such as virtue, which we desire. Responding to this, Mill says

that everything we desire becomes part of happiness. Thus, happiness becomes a complex phenomenon

composed of many parts, such as virtue, love of money, power, and fame.


1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure and absence of pain?

I dearly believe in this quote “Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If

you love what you are doing, you will be successful.” I think it is really happiness that matters in any

aspect. It is the aspect because it can encompass all the things in the world and nothing is important and

great with happiness.

2. Does Mill convince you that the higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person

of experience who prefers the lower?

“He proffers a distinction (one not found in Bentham) between higher and lower pleasures, with

higher pleasures including mental, aesthetic, and moral pleasures. When we are evaluating whether or

not an action is good by evaluating the happiness that we can expect to be produced by it, he argues that

higher pleasures should be taken to be in kind (rather than by degree) preferable to lower pleasures. This

has led scholars to wonder whether Mill’s utilitarianism differs significantly from Bentham’s and whether

Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures creates problems for our ability to know what will

maximize aggregate happiness.”

3. Mill says "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of ethics of utility." True or

not?

I do think so that what Mill says is true because the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth to achieve that a

man must act in whatever way every other man should act when in that situation.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill's proof of the principle of utility is defective. Agree?

I think so because he did not consider the individuality of a person. Mill disregarded the aspects that

utility is not to be applied as a whole.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism (Chapter 6)


QUOTATION: "The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable, as an end; all

other things desirable as means to that end."


- I want to know about what is the debate over utilitarianism.

- I want to understand why are disagreeing to utilitarianism.

REVIEW:

Classical Utilitarianism can be summarized in three propositions which is defined by Bentham and

Mill. The first preposition is that actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.

Nothing else matters. The second preposition is that in accessing consequences, the only thing that

matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. The third preposition is that in

calculating happiness or unhappiness what will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more

important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare is equally important.

The theory continues to be widely accepted, even tough it has been challenged by a number of

apparently devastating arguments. These anti-utilitarianism arguments are so numerous, and so

persuasive, that many have concluded the theory must be abandoned. Despite the arguments, a great

many thinkers refuse to let the theory go. The anti-utilitarianism arguments show only that the classical

theory needs to be modified.

The classic utilitarian reply is one thing, and one thing only, namely happiness. The utilitarian doctrine

is that happiness is desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end. The idea

that happiness is the one ultimate good is known as Hedonism. Hedonism is a perennially popular theory

that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks.

Rachels admit that Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something

that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only as means of

bringing it about. The theory, which at first seemed so progressive and commonsensical, now seems

indefensible; it is at odds with such fundamental moral notions as justice and individual rights, and seems

unable to account for the place of backward-looking reasons in justifying conduct.

This section states that there are three line of defense offered in reply to arguments over

utilitarianism by Rachels. The first line of defense is to point out that the examples used in the anti-

utilitarian arguments are unrealistic and do not describe situations that come up in the real world. The

second line of defense admits all this and proposes to save Utilitarianism by giving it new formulation. In

revising a theory to meet criticism, the trick is to identify precisely the feature of the theory that is causing

the trouble and to change that, leaving the rest of the theory undisturbed as much as possible.


- I learned the three line of defense.

- I have examined the importance of happiness and different points about it.


1. What is Classical Utilitarianism?

2. What are the three prepositions for Classical Utilitarianism?

3. What is happiness?

4. What is Hedonism?

5. What is the defense of utilitarianism?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Classical Utilitarianism can be summarized in three propositions which is defined by Bentham and Mill.

The first preposition is that actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.

Nothing else matters. The second preposition is that in accessing consequences, the only thing that

matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. The third preposition is that in

calculating happiness or unhappiness what will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more

important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare is equally important.

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

The classic utilitarian reply is one thing, and one thing only, namely happiness. The utilitarian doctrine

is that happiness is desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end. The idea

that happiness is the one ultimate good is known as Hedonism. Hedonism is a perennially popular theory

that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks.

Rachels admit that Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something

that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only as means of

bringing it about. The theory, which at first seemed so progressive and commonsensical, now seems

indefensible; it is at odds with such fundamental moral notions as justice and individual rights, and seems

unable to account for the place of backward-looking reasons in justifying conduct.

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

Justice-the argument is only if someone were in the position then on utilitarian grounds he should

bear false witness against the innocent person. Therefore according to utilitarianism, lying is a thing to do.

But the argument continues it would be wrong to bring about the execution of the innocent man. Justice

requires that we treat people fairly. According o their individual needs and merits.

Rights- utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if the produce a favorable happiness over

unhappiness. It is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was caused. In that case the

utilitarian conclusions apparently would be that their actions are morally all right.

Promises- there are important general lesson to be learned from this argument. Why is utilitarianism

vulnerable to this sort of criticism? It is because the only kinds of considerations that the theory holds

relevant to determine the rightness of actions are considerations having to do with their future.

4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?

Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the right action is the one which

produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of beings. Act

utilitarianism is opposed to rule utilitarianism, which states that the morally right action is the one that is

in accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness.

5. What is the third line of defence?

On this way of thinking an act utilitarian is a perfectly indefensible doctrine and does not need to be

modified. Rule utilitarianism by contrast is unnecessarily watered down version theory which gives rule a

greater importance than they merit. Act-utilitarian is however recognizes to be radical doctrine which

implies that many of our ordinary moral feelings may be mistaken. In this respect it does what good

philosophy always doest it what good philosophy always does it challenges us to rethink matters that we

have therefore taken for granted.


1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with

utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

In this statement, I apologize to disagree because I think it is not right to reject common moral beliefs

when they conflict with utilitarianism because I believe that it depends on the person in the first place

they have different beliefs and cultures as a factor for applying utilitarianism.

2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What

about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

In this issue I think all beings created and presented by God must be considered to be given moral

consideration to all concerned.

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

I do agree with Rachels that in claiming merits it should be given moral consideration independent of

utility.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Categorical Imperative (Chapter 7)


QUOTATION: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become a

universal law”


- I want to understand the concepts about categorical imperative.

- I want to learn the different issues on goodwill.

- I want to determine the different aspect incorporated to good will.

REVIEW:

In this section, Kant stated that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if

it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill. Without the principles of good

things it may become exceedingly bad; and the very coolness of scoundrel makes them not merely more

dangerous but also more immediately more abominable in our eyes than we should have taken them to

be without.

According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in

one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He

defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. 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.

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:

• "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a

universal law."

Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two subsets: perfect duty and imperfect

duty.

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. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action,

it would contradict the first formulation to claim that a person is merely a means to some other end,

rather than always an end in his or her self.

On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.

• "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any

other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

The second formulation also leads to the imperfect duty to further the ends of ourselves and others.

If any person desires perfection in himself or others, it would be his moral duty to seek that end for all

people equally, so long as that end does not contradict perfect duty.


- I learned the aspects incorporated with goodwill.

- I become more familiar with the categorical imperative.


1. What is Categorical Imperative?

2. What is good will?

3. What are gifts of fortune?

4. What does the character portrays?

5. What are the grounds of principle?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

Kant stated that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which can be

taken as good without qualification, except goodwill. Without the principles of good things it may become

exceedingly bad; and the very coolness of scoundrel makes them not merely more dangerous but also

more immediately more abominable in our eyes than we should have taken them to be without.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in

one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He

defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. 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 (using the notion of a universal law), and

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

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:

• "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a

universal law."

Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two subsets: perfect duty and imperfect

duty.

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and

explain it.

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. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action,

it would contradict the first formulation to claim that a person is merely a means to some other end,

rather than always an end in his or her self.

On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.

• "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any

other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

The second formulation also leads to the imperfect duty to further the ends of ourselves and others.

If any person desires perfection in himself or others, it would be his moral duty to seek that end for all

people equally, so long as that end does not contradict perfect duty.


1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are

they two different rules? Defend your view.

I think it is one basic rule because in the categorical imperative it is just concerning about the content

in which it is not really certain difference in rules. If you will accept a case whether you know or not you

will accept it because in any sense you still need to do it in which you will have same approach still you

will be alleged.

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral truth. Do you agree or

not?

I agree to it because in any sense you did not do a task because you are considering it as a job.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral

actions. Is this a good criticism?

I do not think it can be considered as a good criticism because not at once you can say what that

object thinks of it. You cannot criticize someone easily because you know what it contains. I think there

are still different factors to consider before criticizing issues.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Happiness and Virtue (Chapter 8)


QUOTATION: “All humans beings, seek happiness is not pleasure, honor, wealth, but an activity of the soul in

accordance with the virtue”


- I want to understand more issues in virtue.

- I want to learn the connection of happiness and virtue.

REVIEW:

Happiness is not a pleasure, honor or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance of virtue. Happiness is

always for the sake of itself but never for the sake of something else just like the honor, pleasure, reason and every

virtue we choose indeed for themselves but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that they by

means of them we shall be happy. Happiness is neither no one chooses for the sake of these or for anything other

than itself.

Happiness is related to virtue in the sense that it makes no small difference whether we place the chief good

in possession or in use, in state of mind or activity. For the state of mind may exist without producing any good

result.

Similar to virtue, happiness is related to pleasure because it is a state of the soul in which it depends on the

man or individual how they will find happiness in the things they are doing. Conflicts occur because sometimes it is

just not by nature pleasant but as an adventure charm.

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 has the virtue in studying, in any sense there will be times that failure in any form can be

experienced then it is either that person accept that failure as a challenge as a positive approach or down himself

and treat the failure as the end of his life. As said it is not easy but then it is not for everyone.

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.


- I learned the aspect of virtue in terms of happiness.

- I have acquainted the two kinds of virtue.


1. What is virtue?

2. What are the two kinds of virtue?

3. What is moral virtue?

4. How can you measure perfect happiness?

5. What does a man need to consider being a man?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Happiness is not a pleasure, honor or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance of virtue.

Happiness is always for the sake of itself but never for the sake of something else just like the honor,

pleasure, reason and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves but we choose them also for the sake

of happiness, judging that they by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness is neither no one chooses

for the sake of these or for anything other than itself.

Happiness is related to virtue in the sense that it makes no small difference whether we place the

chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or activity. For the state of mind may exist without

producing any good result.

Similar to virtue, happiness is related to pleasure because it is a state of the soul in which it depends

on the man or individual how they will find happiness in the things they are doing. Conflicts occur because

sometimes it is just not by nature pleasant but as an adventure charm.

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

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 has the virtue in studying, in any sense there will be times that failure in any form can be

experienced then it is either that person accept that failure as a challenge as a positive approach or down

himself and treat the failure as the end of his life. As said it is not easy but then it is not for everyone.

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

happy?

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.


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

of pleasure?

In my own opinion, the only wrong thing with a life of pleasure is that if someone will experience this

either a deficiency or excess but will be a little bit of acceptance and behavior to one person.

In any form of excess or deficiency is bad because the value given to it will be a terrible one for

anyone in the form of personality.

2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or

not?

Philosopher will be happier than anyone else because they have more knowledge and their moral are

well disciplined because of the different studies they undergone. I do agree with this because they have

experience and study different fields and even different ideas in this world that I think can make them

more happier and their willingness for understanding and learning are more wider than us.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Nature and Value of Rights (Chapter 9)


QUOTATION: “Today servants qualify for their wages by doing their agreed upon chores, no more and no less.


- I want to determine what the natures of rights are.

- I want to understand what the value of rights is.

REVIEW:

Feinberg want to demonstrate that rights are morally important. He imagines Nowheresville, a world

like our own except that people do not have rights. People in this world cannot make moral claims when

they are treated unjustly. They cannot demand or claim just treatment, and so they are deprived of self

respect and human dignity.

“Doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties is the doctrine that all duties entail other

people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged

entailment from duties to rights, need concern us here. Etymologically is associated with actions that are

due someone else, the payments of debts to creditors, the keeping of the agreements with promises, the

payment of club dues, or legal fees, or tariff levies to appropriate authorities or their representatives. All

duties are correlated with the right of those to whom the duties is owned. There seem to be numerous

classes of duties, both of a legal and non-legal kind, that are not logically correlated with the rights of

other persons. When the notion of requirement is in clear focus it is likely to seem the only element in the

idea of duty that is essential, the other component notion that a duty is something due someone else

drops off.

Origin of the idea deserving good or bad treatment from others: A master or lord was under no

obligation to reward servant for especially good service; still a master might naturally feel that there

would be a special fittingness in giving a gratuitous reward as a grateful response to the good service.

The idea of desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginning by now, but nevertheless, it seems

clearly to be one of those words. Today servants quality for their wages by ding their agreed upon chores,

no more and no less. In our age of organized labor, for almost every kind of exchange of service is

governed by hard bargained contracts so that even bonuses can sometimes be demanded as a matter of

right, and nothing is given for nothing on either side of the bargaining table.

Rights have to come in somewhere, if we are to have even moderately complex forms of social

organization. Without rules that confer rights and impose obligations, how can we have ownership of

property, bargains and deals, promises and contracts, appointments and loans, marriages and

partnerships? The sovereign had a certain duty to treat his subjects well, but this duty was owned not to

the subjects directly, but to God, as we might have duty to a person to treat his property well, of course

no duty to the property itself but only to its owner. The sovereign was quite capable of harming his

subjects; he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior

claims against his conduct.

In the Leviathan, however, ordinary people had ordinary rights against one another. They played

roles, occupied offices, made agreements, and signed contracts. In a genuine obligation toward one

another; but the obligations will not be owned directly to promises, creditors, and parents and the like,

but rather to God alone, or to the member or to the member of some elite, or to a single sovereign under

God.

This is not quite an accurate account of the matter, for it fails to do justice to the way claim-rights are

somehow prior to, or more basic than, the duties with which they are necessary correlated. Many

philosophical writers have simply identified rights with claims. Claims defines as assertions of right a

dizzying piece of circularity that led one philosopher to complain.

Even if there are conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights diffidently, there is no

doubt that their characteristics use and that for which they are distinctively well suited, is to be claimed,

demanded, affirmed, insisted upon.


- I learned the nature of rights.

- I have acquainted the doctrine of correlativity.

- I understand how important right is.


1. What is personal desert?

2. What is Sovereignty?

3. What is Nowheresville?

4. What is doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties?

5. What are claim-rights?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Nowheresville is a world like our own except that people do not have rights. People in this world

cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly. They cannot demand or claim just treatment,

and so they are deprived of self respect and human dignity.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this

doctrine?

According to this chapter, doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties is the doctrine that all

duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Only the first part of the

doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights, need concern us here. Etymologically is associated

with actions that are due someone else, the payments of debts to creditors, the keeping of the

agreements with promises, the payment of club dues, or legal fees, or tariff levies to appropriate

authorities or their representatives. All duties are correlated with the right of those to whom the duties is

owned.

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

Nowheresville?

Feinberg states or explains that the concept of personal desert is a moral notion concerned with, as

Feinberg puts it, a certain “kind of fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s

… respond”.

Personal desert will work only to Nowheresville if this place will going to practice the importance of

rights to people morally and equally. The idea of desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginning by

now, but nevertheless, it seems clearly to be one of those words. Today servants quality for their wages

by ding their agreed upon chores, no more and no less.

4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to

Feinberg?

The sovereign to be sure had a certain duty to treat his subjects as well, but this duty was owed not

to the subject directly, but to God just as wee might have a duty to a person to treat his property well, but

of course no duty to the property itself but only to its owner. The sovereign was quite capable of harming

his subjects; he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no

prior claims against his conduct. Genuine sovereign monopoly they will do all those things too, and thus

incur genuine obligations will not be owed directly to promise creditors, parents, and the like but rather

to god alone, or to the members of some elite or to a single sovereign under god.

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

A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations for other parties. This is to

petition or seek by virtue of supposed right; to demand as due. This is done by acknowledged right holder

when he serves notice that he now wants turned over to him that which has already been acknowledged

to be his, something borrowed, say, or improperly taken from him.


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

Feinberg convinces me that rights are essential or important because the mutuality and relativism of

it is really confused to anyone in the society today. Also, right is one of the important things that a man

possesses especially in any society today because it guides anyone to perfect acceptance and freedom.

2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

Honestly, I cannot think of any noncircular definition of claim-right because I do believe is claim-right

is always circular and it applies in different scenarios in the society.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: Taking Rights Seriously (Chapter 10)


QUOTATION: “Not all legal rights or an even constitutional right represents moral rights against the government.”


- I want to know why it is important to take rights seriously.

- I want to understand what are the rights of the citizens

- I want to be acquainted with what are the rights and what are the rights to break the law.

- I want to identify what are the legal rights.

REVIEW:

In this section, it discusses Dworkin’s view which is “if people have a right to do something, then it is

wrong to interfere with them. He believes rests on Kantian idea of treating people with dignity as

members of the moral community and also the idea of political equity.

It also tackles the language of rights now dominates political debate in the United States. The concept

of rights, and particularly the concept of rights against the Government, has its most natural use when a

political society as divide, and appeals to co-operation or a common goal are pointless.

The debate does not include the issue of whether citizens have some moral rights against their

Government. Conventional lawyers and politicians take it as a point of pride that our legal system

recognizes. They base their claim that our law deserves respect for they would not claim that totalitarian

systems deserve the same loyalty. Philosophers rejected the idea that citizens have right apart from what

the law happens to give them.

The constitution fuses legal and moral issues, by making the validity of a law depend on the answer to

complex moral problems. It does not tell us whether the Constitution recognizes all the moral rights that

citizens have, and it does not tell us whether, as many suppose, citizens would have a duty to obey the

law even if it did invade their moral rights. The constitutional system adds something to the protection of

moral rights against the Government; it falls far short of guaranteeing these rights, or even establishing

what they are.

A responsible government must be ready to justify anything it does, particularly when it limits the

liberty of its citizens. When individual citizens are said to have rights against the Government, it must

mean that this sort of justification is not enough. The claim would not argue that individuals have special

protection against the law when their rights are in play, and that is just the point of the claim.

If they take their duty seriously, they must try to limit their mistakes, and they must therefore try to

discover where the dangers of mistakes lie. They might choose one of two very different models for this

purpose.

The first model recommends striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands

of society at large. The first model has great plausibility, and most laymen and lawyers would response to

it warmly. The metaphor of balancing the public interest against personal claims is established in our

political and juridical rhetoric. It gives the model both familiarity and appeal.

The second is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of a

political community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the more

powerful members have secured for themselves, so that if some men have freedom of decision whatever

the effect on the general good, then all men must have the same freedom.

The institution requires an act of faith on the part of the minorities because the scope of their rights

will be controversial whenever they are important, and because the officers of the majority will act on

their own notions of what these rights really are.


- I learned that rights must be taken seriously.

- I have discovered the two different models for taking rights seriously.


1. What is Dworkin’s view?

2. What des Dworkin’s believes to?

3. How the Constitution does fuses legal and moral issues?

4. What is a responsible government?

5. When do individual citizens have rights against the government?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the

USA Constitution?

According to Dworkin, if the people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with

them. This notion of rights according to him rest on the Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as

members of the moral community and also to the idea of political equality. The concept of rights and

particularly the concepts of rights against the government have its most natural use when a political

society is divided and appeals to co-operation or a common goal are pointless.

The rights that are protected by the USA Constitutions are those rights that are known and agreed

upon by their country and by their people. They are protecting all rights that they have as long as it is not

violated and abused.

2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral

rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.

Legal rights are rights which exist under the rules of legal systems. These are the rights that are under

the legal systems for example individual rights of free speech, equality and due process and the like.

Moral rights are rights that are based from morality and conscience of an individual. It is also called

moral rights or inalienable rights, are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or

a particular society or polity.

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

Dworkin find more attractive?

The first model recommends striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands

of society at large. The first model has great plausibility, and most laymen and lawyers would response to

it warmly. The metaphor of balancing the public interest against personal claims is established in our

political and juridical rhetoric. It gives the model both familiarity and appeal.

The second is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of a

political community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the more

powerful members have secured for themselves, so that if some men have freedom of decision whatever

the effect on the general good, then all men must have the same freedom.

Dworkin become more attracted with the second model for way government deifne the rights of

citizens.

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

The two important ideas behind the institution of rights are act of faith by the majorities and

minorities and justifications of rights.


1. Does a person have the right to break the law?

All of us have right to be free in which if you choose to break laws then it is still under the right of

yours to be free.

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill's utilitarianism?

I think there is strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism because of similar concepts and

views discussed in this section as well as Mill’s utilitarianism.

3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense?

I do not think so Kant would accept or agree rights in the strong sense.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice (Chapter 11)


QUOTATION: “The first principle of justice involves equal basic liberties.”


- I want to know the view of Rawls when it comes to justice.

- I want to understand what the theory of justice is.

- I want to be acquainted with the two different principles of justice.

REVIEW:

John Rawls is the author of Justice as Fairness: A Restatement which in his theory he states that there

are two principles of justice. The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle

concerns he arrangement of social and economic inequalities. These are the principles tree and rational

persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the

contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

Rawls says that the rules of justice are chosen in an Original Position, behind a 'veil of ignorance' that

conceals from the parties facts about themselves such as sex, age, physical and strength, that might be

envisaged in attempts to tailor the rules to give some a systematic advantage.

The first principle of justice according to Rawl’s states that “Each person is to have an equal right to

the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”.

It must be treated equally and we must know how to treat equally not only to others but as well as to all

aspects of life.

“The second principle is also called the difference principle, and it specifies how economic advantages

should be distributed. It has two parts. Firstly, there is the difference principle proper, the principle for

the distribution of acquired wealth in society. This is basically the principle to regulate taxation and

redistribution. The second part of the second principle is the principle of equal opportunity. It regulates

access to coveted social positions - basically jobs and positions of authority”.


- I learned that rights must be taken seriously.

- I have discovered the two different models for taking rights seriously.


1. What is theory of justice is all about?

2. What is the main idea of the theory of justice?

3. What is the first principle is all about?

4. What is the second principle is all about?

5. What is the view of Rawls about justice?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. Carefully explain Rawl’s conception of the original position.

Rawls says that the rules of justice are chosen in an Original Position, behind a 'veil of ignorance' that

conceals from the parties facts about themselves such as sex, age, physical and strength, that might be

envisaged in attempts to tailor the rules to give some a systematic advantage.

2. State and Explain Rawl’s first principle of Justice.

The first principle of justice according to Rawl’s states that “Each person is to have an equal right to

the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”.

It must be treated equally and we must know how to treat equally not only to others but as well as to all

aspects of life.

3. State and Explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?

“The second principle is also called the difference principle, and it specifies how economic advantages

should be distributed. It has two parts. Firstly, there is the difference principle proper, the principle for

the distribution of acquired wealth in society. This is basically the principle to regulate taxation and

redistribution. The second part of the second principle is the principle of equal opportunity. It regulates

access to coveted social positions - basically jobs and positions of authority”


1. On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this

does not interfere with similar liberty for others. What does this allow to do?

The first principle each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this

does not interfere with similar liberty for others allows each individual in the community or in the society

to weight and to know the goodness and the badness of a certain act which we cannot deny the fact most

of the times happening.

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

than those given by Rawls?

I think it is possible for free and rational persons in the orginal position to agree upon different

principles than those given by Rawls.

TITLE: Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice (Chapter 12)


QUOTATION: “Justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory”


1. I want to know the need to justice.

2. I want to understand the different viewpoints of Annette Baier.

REVIEW:

Annette Baier describes the system of ethics based solely on justice. Baier says, is the introduction of

“care” as an ethical system to supplement traditional liberal theories of justice. She contends that

women are more likely to have feelings of care, while men generally claimed to take only the justice

perspective. Baier argues that the perspective of caretakers fulfills people’s emotional needs to be

attached to something.

Reciprocal equality, characteristic of contractarian liberalism, does not guarantee this attachment “.

While on care perspective she describes that “Women, by contrast, are more often concerned with

substantive moral matters of care, personal relationships and avoiding hurt to others. They tend to avoid

abstract principles and universalist pretensions and to focus instead on contextual detail and

interpersonal emotional responsiveness.”

These are the criticisms does Giligan and Baier make of this theory: the empirical correlation between

gender and moral perspective was not uniform and the data themselves were open to various

interpretations. women's orientation toward care and personal relationships seemed mainly to reflect the

social role of the traditional, full-time heterosexual wife and mother. A third objection is that the

empirical research underlying Gilligan's discussion of care ethics was based only on white, middle-class,

heterosexual women, and her writings did not acknowledge that differences among women might make a

difference to their moral perspectives.

The three important differences between Kantian liberals and their ethics based on what Baiers’s

states are the relative weight put on relationships between equal, the relative weight put on freedom of

choice, and the authority of intellect over emotions.


- I learned that justice is needed.

- I have discovered the three important differences between Kantian liberals and their ethics.


1. What is a Moral Theory?

2. What is Care perspective according to the topic?

3. What is Justice perspective according to the topic?

4. Why is justice needed?

5. What does Baier argues regarding perspective of caretakers?

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

develop?

Annette Baier describes the system of ethics based solely on justice. Baier says, is the introduction of

“care” as an ethical system to supplement traditional liberal theories of justice. She contends that

women are more likely to have feelings of care, while men generally claimed to take only the justice

perspective. Baier argues that the perspective of caretakers fulfills people’s emotional needs to be

attached to something.

Reciprocal equality, characteristic of contractarian liberalism, does not guarantee this attachment “.

While on care perspective she describes that “Women, by contrast, are more often concerned with

substantive moral matters of care, personal relationships and avoiding hurt to others. They tend to avoid

abstract principles and universalist pretensions and to focus instead on contextual detail and

interpersonal emotional responsiveness.”

2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this

theory?

These are the criticisms does Giligan and Baier make of this theory: the empirical correlation between

gender and moral perspective was not uniform and the data themselves were open to various

interpretations. women's orientation toward care and personal relationships seemed mainly to reflect the

social role of the traditional, full-time heterosexual wife and mother. A third objection is that the

empirical research underlying Gilligan's discussion of care ethics was based only on white, middle-class,

heterosexual women, and her writings did not acknowledge that differences among women might make a

difference to their moral perspectives.

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

these differences?

The three important differences between Kantian liberals and their ethics based on what Baiers’s

states are the relative weight put on relationships between equal, the relative weight put on freedom of

choice, and the authority of intellect over emotions.

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

In my own opinion Baeir attack the Kantian view to just enlighten up anyone with his message.


1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need "to trans value the values of our patriarchal past"?

Do new values replace the old ones? If so, do we abandon justice, freedom, and rights?

Replacing the old with a new one is really accepted, I think so, especially in the society today. The

views on moral issues are been developing and yields to a more new approach which is sometimes

opposing to the old one. We do not abandon justice, freedom and rights.

2. What is wrong with Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women and

minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

Baier’s view was insufficient that’s why she is in favor to other views.

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our

parents, but still don't we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn't this very important?

I really understand why this opinions is stressed out but I be to disagree to treat this kind of issue to

test as freedom because it would be unfair for people and it does not show certain equality and fairness

because there will be people who will not be lucky to be chosen. Another point is that not all people are

capacitated to have a baby and in that sense they also do not have freedom.

USE CASE DIAGRAM of EXISTING SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY

Title: Accomplish Requirements

Summary: This use case allows the author to accomplish necessary requirements for copyright.

Actors: Author, Public Attorney Creation Date: February 28, 2009

Version: 1.0 Created by: Cristine Camille Valenzona

FLOW OF EVENTS

Precondition: The author must have necessary number of copies of artifacts for copyright.

Main Success Scenario:

1. The author gets application form and affidavit.

2. The author fills out the form.

3. The author validates the contents of the form.

4. The public attorney receives the validated form.

5. The public attorney notarizes form.

6. The public attorney returns notarized form.

7. The author pays fee for notary.

Error Sequence:

No public attorney available to notarize necessary forms.

Post-conditions:

1. The application form and affidavit can be submitted to copyright artifacts.


Title: Submit Requirements

Summary: This use case allows the author to accomplish necessary requirements for copyright.

Actors: Author, Copyright Officer, COOP Clerk, Cashier

Creation Date: February 28, 2009 Version: 1.0

Created by: Cristine Camille Valenzona

FLOW OF EVENTS

Precondition: The author must have necessary forms notarized.


1. The Author submits the artifacts, notarized application form and affidavit to the

COOP office.

2. The Copyright Officer receives the artifacts notarized application form and affidavit.

3. The Copyright Officer validates the application form and affidavit.

4. The Copyright Officer returns the application form and affidavit.

5. The Author pays copyright fees.

6. The Cahier receives payment.

7. The Cashier issues receipt.

8. The Author receives receipt.

9. The Author buys stamps.

10. The COOP Clerk provides stamps.

11. The Author submits the receipts and stamps.

12. The Copyright Officer issues claim slip.

Alternative Sequence:

3a. The Copyright Officer validates the application form and affidavit.

1. The Copyright Officer informs the author.

2. The Author accomplishes requirements.

Error Sequence:

There are incomplete requirements.

Post-conditions:

1. The artifacts are for review to be copyright.

ACTIVITY DIAGRAM of EXISTING SYSTEM

a. Accomplish Requirement

b. Submit Requirements

USE CASE DIAGRAM Proposal

USE CASE NARRATIVES


Title: Log in

Summary: This use case allows the Author and Copyright Clerk to access the online copyright

system.

Actors: Author, Copyright Officer Creation Date: February 28, 2009

Version: 1.0 Created by: Cristine Camille Valenzona

FLOW OF EVENTS

Precondition: The author must have necessary forms notarized.


1. The user will enter credentials.

2. The system will authenticate the credentials.

3. The credentials will be valid.

4. The user will be logged on the system

5. The user can use the functions depending on their access level.

Error Sequence:

1. The user will enter credentials.

2. The system will authenticate the credentials.

3. The credentials will not be valid.

4. The user will not be granted access.

5. The system will prompt the use to enter valid credentials.

Post-condition:

1. The user can now use the system.

RECEIPT

contemporary moral problems (chapter 1)

Documents