ithethic contemporary moral problems - final

Contemporary Moral Problems by:

Francisco Ma. T. Guison

ITETHIC 3rd Term, S.Y 2008-2009

CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

By


THIS WORK IS LICENCED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-NON-COMMERCIAL-NO DERIVATIVE WORKS 3.0 PHILIPPINES LICENCE




Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

I – CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism ……………………………………………………………...3

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience ……………………………………………………………6

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality …………………………………………………………….9

Mary Midgley: Trying Out one’s New Sword ………………………………………………………………...11

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism ………………………………………………………………………………...13

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism ……………………………………………………………15

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative ………………………………………………………………...17

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue ……………………………………………………………………………….19

Joel Feinber: The Nature and Value of Rights ……………………………………………………………...22

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously …………………………………………………………………..24

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice ……………………………………………………………………………...26

Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice ………………………………………………………...28




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

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

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

• The difference of psychological Egoism and ethical egoism?

• Why is it called moral institution of life? Review: The first topic of this chapter discussed about the Egoism and Moral Scepticism. First of all, we need to define what Egoism is and how egoism can affect our lives. Egoism is a study or a doctrine of morals that are focuses in individual interests. The individual interest is the base part of the human why they need to become happier in life. The human are very sensitive to their interests and this means that their interests are the only key to continue their respective lives. One’s own interests are greater important than any other important things existed. If people ask you what are your interests, you will proudly answer your interests with a description as much as possible so that the one you are talking to will also have an interest of you. If the two of you has the same interest, then it is a great chance that you have a new friend because of your common interests. That’s the concept of interest with egoism. Going back to the book, stated here that Psychological egoism is the view that all human are selfish in everything that they do. It is self interest per se, because every human has a way to have interest of something. Interest that is something to be proud of and this interest are sometimes useful to get the interest of the public. “Men are acting in ways apparently calculated to benefit others.” This means that we have different perspective, different point of view in interests that’s why it is stated that men are acting ways. The calculated to benefit others are somewhat different. The interest of an individual can be benefited by other person. For example, this person is very dedicated to his work and at the same time, he has also great interest with his work, his co-worker, honestly did not like his work and has no interest of his work at all. So his co-worker needs to talk to the one who has more interest in their work. As they work together, the outcome is that the co-worker is very dependent on him. As a result, their work could be unproductive because the focus element is not present on their respective work. That’s the Psychological Egoism means and explanation of this book. On the other hand, Ethical Egoism is the contrast of Psychological egoism. “A normative view about how men ought to act.” It means that the man is just always justified or defensible on what interests he/she may have regardless the effect of others. They consider their interests to be as is. Justified on what they have, and interest will keep up the reason why they want to be in this life.




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

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

Citations:

Contemporary Moral Problems: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism pp. 2 – 8 Review Questions:

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

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

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

• The psychological egoism is that Gyges has an interest in the ring to acquire power. He is selfish type because he acts for his own interest. The ethical egoism is that he has no obligation to do such thing. He just interested with this.

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

• These arguments are person’s action as selfish and unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent.

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

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

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

• It is the contrast of Psychological Egoism. He believe that obligation is useless than interest.

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




Discussion Questions:

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

• Yes, because Rachel explains the true meaning of interests with morality. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even

people they don’t know?

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

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

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




Book Review: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference: Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote:

“Just what are we referring to when we speak of morality and religion?” I chose this quote because the morality and religion are present on this quote. As we go on to this discussion, John Arthur will discuss to us anything related under morality and religion discussions. How does this virtue can affect people lives? Learning Expectations

• The connection of morality and religion

• Learn how religion impacts the people for motivation and guidance.

• How divine command theory works?

• Is Morality is social? Review: John Arthur divided his discussions into 4 major parts namely, the Morality and religion, Religious motivation and guidance, the divine command theory, and morality is social. As we noticed, it is all about the issues of morality. Each discussion of this has a topic of morality and because of this; John Arthur approaches the nature of morality in every people lives. He will discuss the connection of Morality and religion. He defined religion as involved beliefs in supernatural powers that created and controlled by nature. This means that it is only the connection between God and the people. Morality is different from religion. The contrasts of these 2 values are very much alike but the way of doing it is different. Morality involves attitudes toward value form of behavior. This means that it all depends on the behavior of a human to correct his/her humanity. On the other hand, Religion is somewhat supernatural and this means that it involves prayers as a communication for God and it is also typically in an institutional forms. It is different. The second discussion of John Arthur is the Religious motivation and guidance. He discussed here how religion is necessary to provide moral motivation. It is true that as a human, it is necessary to have a religion because it is a guide and motivation for us to live on earth but John Arthur argues that there is a problem in religion for motivation and guidance the “what if” scenarios is the contrary of the second discussion. We cannot argue with humans because it is their decision and other people have nothing to do about it unless, that person needs an advice for his/her problem. Anyway, people are more focusing on “what if’s” and as a result, we are afraid to do so. The tendency of what ifs is that people will think that religion is under their morality.




The third discussion is the divine command theory. This discussion is focused on a particular point of view made by Mortimer. It is stated here that divine command theory would mean that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature. It simply expresses that without God’s commands; there would be no moral rules in this world. No divine command theory exists. It is believed that God is the foundation of morality. They argued about the command theory but in the end, it will depend on God’s decision whether or not one supports the divine command theory. God created and owns it. The question now is that if the people will follow the command? The fourth discussion entitled “Morality is social” He explained that morality might correctly be thought to be “social”. How about religion? It is stated here that it is influential. It is one-sided of morality and this means that it focuses only on one aspect of morality. It will also depend on what religion you have. Morality governs relationship among people. Not relating any religious terms, this is people to people morality. What I’ve learned: I learned the principles of Religion, Morality and Conscience interconnected together. All of these have a different aspects or point of view but they have one message. This message is to control the behavior of individuals in doing what is right and what is wrong. Integrative Questions:

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

• The differences of these?

• How these 3 can affect people lives?

• How John Arthur portrays religion, morality and conscience?

• Can people believe this?

Citations: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We can’t even determine what is right and wrong up to the point that we are realizing it. It is not necessary for me, because it depends on the decision of that person. Religion is just guidance for them.

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

• No divine theories exist. It is just God who defines the command and there could be a right or wrong. He rejected this theory because in the eyes of God, it is right or wrong but in the people, we wouldn’t know if it is right or wrong.

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

• People’s moral views are shaped by their religious beliefs. This serves as their foundation of morality. But morality is just an act of the person.

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

• According to Arthur, morality’s social character has a deeper meaning of what it is.





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

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

animals?

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

education?

• Moral education is possible and most especially essential to learn.




Book Review: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference: Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “The superior person follows a “master-morality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom.” The master-morality is somewhat powerful because it has power, strength, egoism and freedom to achieve. This is focusing on what people have. Learning Expectations

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

Review: From the word “master-morality”, It is yourself is the master of your morality. It’s true that you, yourself can only make decision for your life. We, ourselves are the master of our own life. Just like a poem says, “I am the master of my soul”. Basing it to this quote, we are able to control ourselves by mastering what personality we have, what kind of attitude we have, characteristics we have and other stuffs in ourselves. We need to master it as much as possible because we know ourselves better than anyone else. Master Morality is defined as “What is good is helpful and what is bad is harmful”. This means that all people who are doing the good side is very much helpful so that means, this people can be benefited by another people unlike in the harmful side, it is the opposite, bad is harmful, disadvantage of other people. This discussion talks all about what a human has in all aspect. In real life, we have a master who can command slaves to do a particular job. That’s the literal meaning of it. Masters are those people who rule slave’s life. On this discussion, It focuses on the “Master morality” and “Slave – morality” That’s why Friedrich Nietzsche discussed this. Above we defined Master Morality; on the other hand, we will define slave-morality. Slave-morality is a re-sentiment and the morality is based on intention. We will find out how this 2 works on the life of the people. It is obvious that Master morality is much powerful than slave morality. It is the side of good and evil. The evil man arouses fears and seeks to arouse it. On the other hand, the good man who arouses fear seeks to arouse it. This means that What I’ve learned: I learned that these two moralities have somewhat similar to each other because they have similarities but this similarity has a different approach. It is hard to explain because it contradicts the good and the bad side moralities. In my own understanding, Master morality is much greater and better because of course you have a power unlike slave morality. The slave morality can overcome master morality if the slave morality has a determination to overcome it.




Integrative Questions:

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

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

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

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

• He describes slave morality with these words. His point of view looking up to the power of slave morality is much better.

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

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

4. Explain the Will to Power.

• The will of power is the interest to have power. Discussion Questions:

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?

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

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

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




Book Review: Mary Midgley: Trying Out one’s New Sword Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:

“Moral Isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralist. It falsely assumes that cultures are separate

and unmixed, whereas most cultures are n fact formed out many influences” Learning Expectations:

1.) What exactly Isolationism is? 2.) Is this effective to our lives? 3.) Does the example of Japanese

Review: We have different culture. When God created the world, we have only one culture. But because of our sin, we are separated to each other. We have so many beliefs and culture now. For sure, they have many beliefs to follow. It is complicated because every beliefs and every culture are very much different. For us, we have also our own beliefs. We are Catholics who believe in God. He is our God, the symbol of each life as a catholic. Also, there are other God’s or Goddesses in other country. For instance in Japan, their God is Buddha, and in other country who had different Gods or Goddesses. It is Isolationism because we strictly cannot interfere to other beliefs. The key here is respect. They will respect you if you will respect them. There are instances that we cannot understand their beliefs, and vice versa. All we have to do is to follow their beliefs. It’s for sure that some of their beliefs, we cannot accept it as is. Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. To respect someone, we have to know enough about the culture to make a favorable judgment, however general and tentative. And we do not understand people in other cultures to this extent. This means that it is hard to accept the respect they have, vice versa. What I’ve learned: We have different culture, beliefs, from other people around the world. What is common is that we are all humans who have respective beliefs. The only problem is that it is hard to respect the beliefs of what they have. Sometimes, it is a conflict to our beliefs. That’s why this discussion is also hard to understand. Integrative Questions:

1.) How Isolationism does affected each belief?

2.) Is it true that respect can be controllable?

3.) How is it related to the world today?




Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

culture.

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

• The cultural background of this example is very much sensitive to the observers because of different cultural backgrounds. Specifically the Japanese culture is very complicated to understand.

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

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

• She thinks how isolationism works. By doing this, she can analyze behavior of each culture.


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

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

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

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




Book Review: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference: Amazon Reference: Quote:

“The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other

things being desirable as means to that end.”

Learning Expectations

• I expect to have a enough concept about utilitarianism

• To have more ideas in this doctrine. Review: The word “utility” defined as the usefulness of something. The exact meaning is that it is being useful. Because of this word, utility, utilitarianism concept came out. It is a doctrine of the greatest good. It is more on an ethical aspect with happiness. It’s positive for the feelings of people. If people are satisfied with this happiness, then it would be voted to be a utilitarian. The practicality is also the key of this discussion because primarily, a person who thinks practical is also called utilitarian. “Believing the value lies in usefulness”. This means that people will depend on the usefulness of other person. The perspective is also good and somewhat bad because they want to acquire the advantage of each other. As we go on to this chapter, we will know the true meaning of utilitarianism. It is seeking for the advantage of other. They are making use of other people so that they can acquire the advantage part over it. As a result, the one who are advantageous are the one who will gain benefit. The usefulness was used by him/her. He/she had a good strategy in making people doing this. Of course it is a bad doctrine or idea for the people but many people are using this doctrine. It is the desire of the people to become happier. Then, they must take an advantage to use utilitarianism. What I’ve learned: Utilitarianism for me is good and bad. It is good because when a particular person did this doctrine, he /she will gain benefit to that person. For instance, you have no talent for a particular activity, then your group mate is very much skilled to do the activity, the tendency is that he/she will be dependent to this person who knows the activity well. Who gained advantage? Of course, the person who are dependent It is bad because it’s not a pleasing doctrine for the eyes of the people. Every day, utilitarianism is happening. People just don’t mind about this doctrine but it is happening every now and then specifically if a particular person has a group work or working employee and etc. We have nothing to do but only to study this doctrine and this will happen forever and ever.





1.) How Utilitarianism works?

2.) Who is the utilitarian?

3.) Why usefulness are advantageous

4.) Does it happening every now and then?

5.) Can people really acquire utilitarianism as a benefit to them? Citations: N/A

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.

• Utility simply means the usefulness of something that is very useful. But here in this essay, We are not talking things here, we are talking humans who are involved in using other people’s talent or whatsoever to acquire benefit.

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

• ”Neither harm nor be harm”. The free pursue of happiness. For him, it’s not enough to explain this because it has no enough evidence for this quote.

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

• He has a point in determining the pleasures. Higher pleasure can lead to happiness; on the other hand, lower pleasure will come into period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?

• 4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective.

Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?




Book Review: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference:

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

Quote:

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


• Learn how to deal with utilitarianism.

Review The first part of this discussion discussed about classical utilitarianism. This shows that utilitarianism has a classical practice and different from a new one. It is described here in three propositions. First, the actions acted are to be judged right or wrong solely with a virtue of their consequences. People may judge you as who you are maybe right or wrong, they don’t care about it as long as they can judge you. The second one is determining the cause of happiness. The person must be right in determining his/her happiness and also he/she should be in right actions to have a balance in happiness. The third one is that no one’s happiness can be measured as more important than anyone else’s. The happiness can be only measured by ourselves so that we are satisfied of what happiness we have.

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

It is stated here that the utilitarian doctrine is the happiness and desirable. Yes, all of us need to be happy at all cost or as much as possible. It is so called the “ultimate good”. It is the highest form of the feelings we have. The most attractive theory studied because of its simplicity and happiness can make us feel. Because people argued about this discussion, the utilitarianism has a defense on these arguments. It is the theory. Utilitarianism shows the consequences are the only things that matters and seems to be mistaken. Nobody’s perfect of course.

What I’ve learned:

I learned that the utilitarianism has so many issues and there are many arguments released by many people in the society. The utilitarianism is justified in this discussion as a line of defense. I learned the lines of defense stated here. These are the important lines to really defend a utilitarianism point of view. The first line of defense is that Utilitarianism as a guide of decision that is irrelevant. This means that it is somewhat imaginary decision. Second line is that this will have a conflict with common sense. Lot of people usually thinks about this and it is a good defense over utilitarianism. The third line of defense describes that utilitarianism is strange with ordinary philosophy of justice. The matches made conflict. The correct about utilitarianism is that we are giving responsibility for all actions. On the other hand, people show choices to deserve different kinds of arguments received.





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

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

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

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

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


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

you agree?




Book Review: Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

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

“The moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule” Learning Expectations

• I expect to know what categorical imperative is in layman’s term.

• How does categorical imperative can affect our lives?

• The rules of categorical imperative produced by Immanuel Kant Review: In the first discussion of this essay, Immanuel Kant portrays the so called Good Will. This good will lead a particular person to good feelings of life. Anything that is good in the earth will be acquired by this person. Surely, that person is one of the luckiest creatures here on earth. Sometimes, all of these can be hurtful based on the discussion it is because it is like a gift of fortune which only fortunate people who are lucky to have a fortunate fate or destiny. The good of will is the will that are destined to each individual. Another good will is the good will and its results. Sometimes, good will just hide somewhere or hidden somewhere in your life and then it will come out unexpectedly. Let’s go to the main topic of this essay which is the Categorical imperative. It is basically the base of will that the maxim of a person should be in universal law. This means that the law of individual is the law of universal. The categorical imperative heart is in this quote: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time wills that it should become a universal law” At first, it is hard to understand this. It is hard to explain in layman’s term. So basically, the key here is the maxim of act because it gives color to the action and gives definite definition to the act done. It is considered as a universal law when people supported your idea. The tendency is that other people will just one thought. What I’ve learned: I learned the values of Good will in this particular essay. Immanuel Kant portrays it as a basis of determining the good will in our lives. The destiny will guide us for the good will so that we prepared to use this good will given to us. Integrative Questions:

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




Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

• The good will for him is destiny. It is unimaginable to have everything in the world. But the good will will lead them to a better life.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

• Hypothetical imperative means there is no assurance beforehand what will it contain. On the other hand, Categorical imperative includes the necessities of a human including the maxim.

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

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

ends). And explain it.

• The means and ends are the symbol of finish. We must do everything to have different outcome.


1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic

rule, or are they tow different rules? Defend your view.

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

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

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

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

• Well, all of us generally has a different perspective in ideas about categorical imperative. We need to respect them. But for me, it is a good criticism that they criticize categorical imperative. Another one is to have an adjustment pertaining to this topic.




Book Review: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference: N/A Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-white/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_sim_b_2/185-6566170-6503008 Quote:

“We must be content, then in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline”

Learning Expectations:

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

• How can this aspect change our lives?

• How Aristotle did discuss this essay? Review: Aristotle is one of the most famous Greek philosophers in the entire history. The concepts that he explained are very unique and all of that concept are really happening in the reality. We are thankful for him because without his study, we cannot give justifications on what we have today specifically moral ethics. As we all know, moral ethics is one of the greatest study of man because we must know exactly where we are in the eyes of God or whoever god we believe into. Aristotle is one of the greatest and most talented philosophers in the world. He has an ethics to explain and that is happiness and virtue. In this particular essay, Aristotle gave importance and discussion to happiness and virtue. These aspects are included into the morality of human. It is hard to understand at first glance because it is very complex and not in order. But Aristotle gave a true color and meaning of these two. In happiness, in a layman’s term, it is described as a simple pleasure that a human can achieve. A human can feel the pleasure and contentment of what he/she is doing. As a result of being happy, he/she is now the human that is really optimistic in predicting the future. Another definition is that happiness is very much satisfying feeling wherein a human is above excitement feeling. It is where the human aims for a good life to be a happy person here on earth. Seeking for happiness is a difficult for every people because it also depends on our personality as a human. Another problem is when and how can a person find happiness. It is important to know how we can find our own happiness because it is the source of being happy while we live here on earth. Aristotle explained that “We must be content, then in speaking such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline.” Basing on what he said, we must be contented on what we have because all of it is part of being happy. Well of course, it depends on us whether we appreciate it or not but the sense of being happy is because we are here living the life we should have. Appreciating life is one of the happiness we can achieve because God created us in His own will and we must be happy about it. We are happy in a way that we appreciate the lives that are given to us. On the second discussion, he discussed about the value of virtue. It is basically a good conduct that arises from habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action. This means that virtue is on the good side.




What I’ve learned: I learned the basic principle of happiness and virtue. We must appreciate that the happiness is one of the greatest ethical aspect that we should be into because it gives color to our lives. Imagine life without happiness, not even a single happiness will lead us to be a serious type of person which is focus only on a particular things. The power of happiness can rule us because we feel pleasure about it in a sense that we must get into it. On the other hand, virtue is a good perspective wherein the people aims for a good reason at all. When people can find the virtue, it can lead us to the value of happiness. Both of that aspect can join together because it is a good will explained by Aristotle. We are very sensitive in our feelings and because we are sensitive, Aristotle explained and justify all about this topic. Thanks to him because we are knowledgeable and justified on what our feeling is. Integrative Questions:

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

Citations: N/A Review Questions What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How it is related to pleasure? - For Aristotle, happiness is part of a human nature and self realization. Its nature for human to have feelings and happiness is the best among of all feelings. That’s why Aristotle emphasizes on that feeling. When we feel the happiness, it’s a pleasure for us because we feel unique about it. All human beings want happiness. Every people who live here on earth can experience it. In relating to virtue, happiness is an expression of character. We are human with excellence characteristics. In relating to pleasure, happiness is also part of it. When we are happy, we pleasure it and we feel that our feeling is above our normal feelings. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. - He explains that moral virtue is a habit through expression and always thinks moral and intellectual side of a person. For example, if a person has a moral virtue, he/she thinks the positive, a negative. He has a courage and confidence to do a particular task but deep inside of him and in reality, he has a lack of courage to overcome that challenge. Is it possible for everyone on our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? - In my opinion, everyone could be happy. We are human created by God and we have a freedom to do things in this world but the problem is if that happiness is good or bad. That’s my Christian perspective. On Aristotle side, it’s the same. We seek for happiness and that happiness can lead us to pleasure. I believe that we can find happiness depending on what we see and hear. It is simultaneous event that is happening around us.




Discussion Questions Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? - I agree that Aristotle suited the life pleasure for a beast because it is powerful creature. Nothing can control the beast because of its power. If anything went wrong in achieving pleasure, then I can say that is a conflict that is happening to our lives. But remember, it is just temporary after all. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not? - Aristotle arrives to that idea because he, himself is a philosopher. And he is happy on what is he doing. Not only Aristotle, but other philosophers too. They love what they are doing therefore they can feel the pleasure and passion in doing it. Actually all of us can be happy as I mentioned from the previous question. But if we are passionate like them, we can also feel what they feel. I strongly agree with this because they have a profession. We can also achieve it by acquiring knowledge like the philosophers. Then we will realize how happy they are.




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

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

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

“People in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly” Learning Expectations

1.) I must learn the basic principle of Nature and value of rights 2.) Explain it in brief layman’s term 3.) Human dignity issues?

Review: Joel Feinberg started his essay by imagining a town that has totally no rights for the people. If a normal person imagines it, it’s totally unpredictable, unbelievable, and miserable. How can a people live in this particular? Can he/she survive mentally and physically? It’s unpredictable if we going to think it. We must also think for an experiment. For instance, you will go to that place with no human rights. The people will just think of you as an insect. An insect that is very harmful to them. In short, you are a slave that can go anywhere in that town with no rights. It’s very much miserable if you think it. But in reality, this town so called “Nowheresville” is happening. It sounds ugly and negative to hear. It is a town with full of negligence and irresponsible people. It is a town where people don’t believe in rights of other people. He says that let the virtues of moral sensibility flourish. These explanations only means that let go on your self-virtues and let them grow do the things that are right for other person. By doing this, your virtue is considered one of a kind because you know what is right and what is wrong. Also, when you have virtue, it will give an opportunity to other people to have equal rights to other people. Giving them a chance to have rights is a very thanksgiving gift for those people who are considered “slave”. Joel Feinberg relates the nature and value of rights to Immanuel Kant’s so called “moral worth”. Moral worth is the certainty that a person has a moral virtue. In doing compassionate actions, the result will be a motivated actions wherein these actions are act in a good way that can influence other people. Keep doing these actions, and there will be a good nature and there is a value of rights between people. Other philosophers are focused on the idea of moral claims. Let us define the word “claim”. In a philosophical point of view, the rights are directed to claims. This essay explains the difference of the rights and claims. The right is a kind of claim and claim is the contention of rights. It is somehow connected but in a different approach, Claim is declaring something that is true in all ways and right is agreeing to one side. Through its definition, both of them are aiming for the truth. In aiming this aspect, our value of rights will be our top priority.




What I’ve learned: I learned the difference and similarities of right and claims. The right is in controlled by individuals mind. The decision of rights will depend on the thinking of a particular person whether to do or to continue a particular act or not. Because of rights and claims, we will know the direction of our value of rights. It will lead us to authenticity which is a good part of our lives. We must appreciate on what Joel Feinberg studied because Value of rights is a basic ethical concept that every human must have. We must eliminate the concept just like experimenting Nowheresville as a town with no rights, we can make our own step in living life naturally with value of rights. Integrative Questions:

1. How Joel Feinberg did explains the duty of rights? 2. Is the Nowheresville exist in reality? 3. If we have no rights at all, we cannot do things we can? 4. How did the claim right explained? 5. Is Nowheresville are full of negligence in the society as experimental imagination?

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

• Nowheresville is just like a slave place wherein there are no rights existed. Unlike in our world, we have a freedom.

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

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

work in Nowheresville?

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

according to Feinberg?

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

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


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

• Feinberg explains here the signs 2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

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




Book Review: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously Book: Contemporary Moral Problems Library Reference: N/A Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-white/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_sim_b_2/185-6566170-6503008 Quote:

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


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

• What is the primary role of the government here?

• Moral rights against their government? Review: Ronald Dworkin has a point of view in taking rights seriously. He started his essay by this condition, “If a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.” It is considered as a challenge for those people who are not taking rights seriously. All of us have a freedom. Again, like what I’ve said before, God created us with his own image and likeness and as a human, God included freedom as a part of our humanity. It is a very special gift that God gave to us. All we need to do is to appreciate it. We must be thankful because we have freedom. But the problem with freedom is that some people will try to interfere. Interfering lives is an annoying thing. One example is that your parents always against to your decision. Of course, as a teenager, we have rights to do what is good for us. Yes, your parents are in making decisions for you because it’s for your own good but a time will come that you will complain that they are always right. How about your freedom? Does is exist? That’s the problem on the issue of freedom. They rule us, as they rule us, they interfere our own freewill. It’s absurdity because it is our right to have rights as a human. So why take it seriously? It simply because we are humans created by God. We must be privileged to take that advantage as a human. We must fulfill our lives here on earth. Some say, live life to the fullest. It is a good vision we have in our lives. Take advantage to it. And yes, we have freedom, a freedom, a freedom of rights. He stated here that even if the constitution were perfect, the “majority” left it alone. So this means that it’s up again to majority just like utilitarianism. Rights are very important to us. That’s why the government governs our country. Since government have 3 branches, they are responsible for us. Specifically in moral or ethical issues, the Supreme Court will have a decision on it. The process must be procedural and based on court, congress and morality. What I’ve learned: I learned how to take advantage of our freedom. Freedom is a very special gift from God. I must appreciate it in any way that a freedom could be appreciated. I’ll take advantage to it so that I will use my own will to help other people. I will use my own freewill in my own way to do good to other people. I must be serious of my freedom because it is my opportunity to express myself as a human. Thanks for the essay made by Ronald Dworkin, I was able to appreciate in taking rights seriously. His principle and essay are very much effective to people because people will know the importance of rights.





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

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

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

protected by the U.S. Constitution?

• The rights are having a correct opinion in an individual perspective. 2. Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are not

moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.

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

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

• The models are legal and constitutional. Dworkin prefer a constitution 4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

• The controversial rights justification. Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

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

• Yes Kant will accept rights.




Book Review: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice


“Rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil ignorance hiding

from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.” Learning Expectations

• Expect to learn the idea of theory of justice.

• Learn how justice can be applied to a government

• Philosophy and Justice combined. Review: John Rawls described justice as a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance. It is covering the good or bad about a case. But what is the true meaning of justice? To define justice in a layman’s term, it is the fairness of both sides. Both sides have a good reason to defend their positions. The justice must be in a procedural form wherein it is based on the law created by constitution or other constitutional forms. If there is a case, it will primarily lead to initial investigation and this case will be evaluated in the court. The case seeks for a justice but it will depend on justice if it will be solved immediately or not. Another meaning of justice is that it carries higher level of abstraction. It is the highest position of determining what the truth is. He explained the principle of justice. He explained it in two parts. The first one is that each person is t have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with others. This means that in general, we have rights as a human here on earth. It will now depend on us if we take it serious or not about it. But we all care about the so called “equal right”. All of us aim to achieve equal rights that have given to us. The question is how we can achieve it. Each individual would ask themselves if they are qualified to have rights. Obviously they are. It’s just a matter on how would that person control his/her rights. If he/she wants to take it seriously, then he/she will find justice on his rights. The second explanation are portraying on a macro level were social and economic aspects are involved. It is explained here that there are inequalities should be adjusted because it is expected to be everyone’s advantage. So that means, we should adjust ourselves from justice because justice can dictate us whether we are right or wrong. Justice is our basis if the truth happened. The responsibility of justice is very much high prioritized because principles and basic structure of society are dependent on it. The assignment of rights and duty is a must in the society. It should be accurate and consistent as much as possible because each people who are involved here have a great responsibility for the society as well as in serving God.




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

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

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

• He explains that the principles of justice. 2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.

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

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

• The issue in economic inequalities of a particular country. Discussion Questions:

1. On the first principle, each person ahs an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

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

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?

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




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


“The justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory.”


• I expect to expand my information about justice.

• How much people value justice?

• Justice as a development of an individual person. Review: All of us must commit the value of justice. Just like the previews chapter, John Rawls said that we must take our rights seriously and we must take that with our whole heart and soul because we are humans living with rights. We have dignity in each eye of people. They respect us and we must respect them also as a return. So, this means that we have an equality to each other specifically equality of respect and justice. In this chapter. Annette Baier, the author of this essay, overlooks that justice has inequalities between people. She put this into analogy that people who have a power are represented as parent and other people who have less power represented as child. In this case, we can see the inequality of the people to have an opportunity to have rights and justice. Imagine how life is difficult without a rights or justice in this world. It’s very difficult to live here because you as a person don’t have enough knowledge in rights. It is also described here that inequality is very unrealistic view of freedom of choice. When you don’t have that freedom like I said before, you can’t feel the love and care that people gave to you. About the word “care”, this essay made special mention to it. It explains how care is important to each one of us while living in this earth. Care is a felt concern for the good of others. But it is considered that it is not a new word for justice. It is actually included in the justice. Let’s have an actual scenario; if one of your friends dies brutally, you and his/her family must seek for justice about his/her death, therefore, your care is involved there. You are really concerned for his/her death. The fact is, justice includes the emotional feelings of the person. Let’s focus now on how they describe justice per se. They described it as a little disagreement because justice and injustice have a different perspective. The justice is a social value of importance; on the other hand, injustice is an evil side. This means that people considered justice as a good side because it can give us enlightenment in our lives. We can seek the truth behind the issue. Unlike injustice, there’s many problem with that and also can give lots of disadvantage and possibility of a miserable life. We need justifications in life. It’s part of our moral tradition. We must take the opportunity that life must have justifications so that we can seek or reveal the truth while we are living. Earth has naturally had a justice. The problem is that if people are willing to justify themselves for the sake of justifications.




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

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

Citations: N/A

Review Questions:

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

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

this theory?

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

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

• Looking at the equal relationship among people, relative weight of freedom, intellectual vs. emotion.

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

• Simply because, she does not support the Kantian idea. Discussion Questions:

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, then do we abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and right?

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

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

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

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?

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

ithethic contemporary moral problems - final

Documents