Book Reviews

JAMES RACHELS: EGOISM AND MORAL SCEPTICISM Quote: “Clearly, if either of these views is correct, then “the moral institution of life” (to us Butler’s well-turned phrase) is very different than what we normally think. The majority of mankind is grossly deceived about what is, or ought to be the case, where morals are concerned.”

What I Expect To Learn: I expect to learn more about egoism and moral scepticism. Moreover, I would like to know how James Rachels, the author, view about egoism and moral scepticism. I also want to learn about Psychological and Ethical Egoism.

Chapter Review: The first thing which James Rachels discussed is the legend of Gyges. The said legend talks about a shepherd who finds magical ring in a fissure caused by an earthquake. The magical ring was said to have powers which allowed the wearer to become invisible thus enabling him or her to do whatever he desires without being noticed by anybody. He used the ring for the purpose of gaining wealth and power. The shepherd used the ring to seduce the queen, kill the king and become the new king of their lands. With the said legend, Rachels have discussed how a so-called virtuous man would behave and how this person would behave differently from the rogue. He said that a virtuous man would behave no differently from a rogue. Why, you might ask? It is for the reason that a person thinks about his self-interest. After all why would he continue to be “moral” if he doesn’t benefit from it and if he doesn’t think he would not gain any advantage from his actions, why would he do it? If I were in the same situation, I honestly think I’d be thinking the same. Why would I do something that doesn’t benefit me? And so, I’d do nothing that would not be advantageous to me. I got really confused when Rachels discussed psychological and ethical egoism. At first glance, both look the same with the other but through careful reading, both are very similar to each other. Psychological egoism is a view wherein a person is selfish. He only thinks about himself and whatever action he does is for his personal gain and to their advantage. Their actions revolve around their self-interests which mean they do something for the sake of their personal interests because it will give them a great advantage. On the contrary, ethical egoism is a view wherein a person acts for his own gain but instead of revolving around, the person’s act is revolving outside his self-interest. This means that he does something that he knows would gain him something but out of his self-interest. He also talked about three confusions which were mainly about the confusion if selfishness with self-interest, the assumption that every actions is done either from selfinterest or other-regarding motives and the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. Honestly speaking, I only understood the first confusion while I didn’t get the two other at all. The first one is about our confusion about selfishness and self-interest. The issue here is that most of the time, we interchange the two with each other when in reality, selfishness and self-interest are two different things. Selfishness is an act that benefits only one person

and does nothing give consideration for the welfare and sake of other people. Self-interest on the other hand, is an act which in which a person does something that does not harm the interest of other people. According to Rachels, we shouldn’t hurt other people for the reason that it would harm other people. In relation to this, Rachels said that we live in a society where the rights and interests of people are respected. We have to respect other people’s rights otherwise, we harm them.

What I Learned: Here, I have learned about the two views or doctrines of egoism which were psychological and ethical egoism. I have also found about the legend of Gyges which was basically about a powerful ring and a greedy shepherd. I also learned the actual difference of selfishness and self-interest and found out about the three confusions we have with regards to the topics discussed in here.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is the psychological egoism? How is ethical egoism different from psychological egoism? Why should we respect the interest and rights of other people? What is the difference of self-interest and selfishness? Why shouldn’t we hurt other people?

Review Questions 1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story? The legend of Gyges tells us about a shepherd who found a magical ring which could make its wearer invisible thus enabling him to do whatever he wants unnoticed. He used the ring’s power to enter the royal palace, seduce the queen and kill the king to become the new king. The legend simply tells us about the shepherd’s hunger for power. The question which was raised in the legend is “how would a so-called virtuous man behave?” The said question was followed by if that so-called virtuous man behaved no better than a rogue then they would be doing the same which is to try and gain more power and wealth. This means that virtuous man or rogue, they would both end up doing the same bad things because after all, both do not see any point on being “moral” since it is not an advantage to them. Like Rachels said, “Moreover, why shouldn’t he? Once he is freed from the fear of reprisal, why shouldn’t a man simply do what he pleases, or what he thinks 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?” Thus, both men (virtuous and rogue) would do what they would think is best for them.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is the view in which men are selfish and would do everything only for their personal gain and to their advantage. Their actions are for their self-interest only which means that they would only do something because they expect that they would get something that would benefit them. On the other hand, ethical egoism is almost the same as ethical egoism although unlike psychological, ethical egoism is a view wherein a person acts out of his self-interests which means that he acts in a way that he would gain something to his advantage but it is out of his self-interests. 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first argument tells us that everything we do is selfish even our so-called good deeds are selfish. It was explained that most of the time, the actions we do are what we really wanted to do thus it becomes a selfish deed. However, there are times that we do thing involuntarily, things that we do not want because we feel like we are obliged to do so and we feel like we have to fulfil that obligation thus it is also a selfish deed. The second argument is simply telling us that our unselfish deeds are deeds which give us satisfaction for our consciousness. This satisfaction though, gives a different meaning to doing pure good for others. This obviously involves a person caring for the person or thing that he helps just as Rachels stated, “If a man were truly selfish, why should it bother his conscience that others suffer” 4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? The first is confusion of selfishness with self-interest. The two, as explained, are different from each other in a sense that the first one are acts that disregard the interest of others and the latter is doesn’t. The second is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives and the last confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare of others. 5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument? The argument stated by Rachels was “To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right for anyone in the same sort of circumstances.” Rachels refused to accept the argument as it violates the interest of the person. Further explanation to this is when Rachels gave the example about beer. If he drank somebody else’s beer and he complains when somebody else drinks from his beer would be okay. This means that, like I said earlier, it violates the interest of the person and his own judgement if the policy of action is right.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? Rachels simply said that we shouldn’t hurt others because such actions would harm other people and an egoist would not be happy and would not accept such reason.

Discussion Questions 1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer? I would say that Rachels have answered the question, “Why be moral” when he said that “it is still to my advantage to respect the rights and interests of others, for it is to my advantage to live in a society in which people’s rights and interests are respected. Only in such a society can I live a happy and secure life; so in acting kindly toward others, I would merely be doing my part to create and maintain the sort of society which it is to my advantage to have.” This meant that we should be moral for the reason that we live in a society that is basically “moral” where the rights and interests of others are respected. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know? Looking at the real world, I can say that genuine egoists are rare. At first thought it may be that people do care only about themselves although giving it a second thought would say that people cares not only about himself, he cares about himself, his family, his friends and to some extent, strangers. I think that the care involved when we talk about strangers is the care which we feel most of the time during danger. Say for example, if I was walking on the streets after buying some food and a little girl who I obviously do not know is asking for food because she hasn’t eaten for days, it could be that I’ll give her the food I bought because I do not want her to be hungry. This care for strangers can be seen through little acts of kindness that we usually do not notice. 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? In my view, you can never say that such would be immoral or not. This is because there are times that it is good to act for the benefit of others but it is also good that at times we act for the benefit of our own self-interest it all just depends on the situation. The thing is neither of the two can be said immoral or not.

JOHN ARTHUR: RELIGION, MORALITY, AND CONSCIENCE Quote: “God rewards those who follow His commands by providing for them a place in heaven or by ensuring that they prosper and are happy on earth. He also punishes those who violate the moral law.”

What I Expect To Learn: I would want to know what the divine command theory is and John Arthur’s stand about it. I also wish to learn on this part the difference between religion and morality and how conscience relates to both.

Chapter Review: John Arthur’s discussion of Religion, Morality and Conscience are divided into four parts. The first part is about morality and religion itself. Here, Arthur has defined morality as an instance where we evaluate our behaviours and sometimes feel guilty about some of our actions. Morality also involves one’s attitudes towards a different person’s behaviour. On the other hand, religion is described as a person’s belief in something of the supernatural level. This involves God, worshipping Him and praying to Him. Religion is our belief in a supernatural being that we worship, pray to and praise. This is a very clear description of morality and religion which shows the distinction of the two from each other. Contrary to this, on the first part of his discussion, Arthur has named the similarity of morality and religion which is that religion serves as a motivation for someone to do the right thing. This means that religion serves as a motivation for morality although morality does not entirely depend on religion alone. The second part of Arthur’s topic is the religious motivation and guidance. Here, he is telling us why religion is not necessary for moral motivation and why religion is not a source of moral knowledge. According to Arthur, religion is not necessary for moral motivation for the reason that most of the time, before a person does something, he thinks of the possible outcomes if he did that certain something. This means that he thinks of the consequences of his actions and how other people would react towards his action and what other people would think of his action. This alone, is a proof that religion is not necessary for moral motivation because if it was necessary, then people would no longer think of what the consequences of their actions would be and what other people would think of them. Religion, according to Arthur is not a source of moral education because not all of the time that we can use the revelations as a solution to what we should do. Most of the time, we look at the pros and cons of the actions if we were to do it or not. The third part is all about the divine command theory. The divine command theory states: “God made us and all the world. Because of that He has an absolute claim on our obedience... From [this] it follows that a thing is not right simply because we think it is. It is right because God commands it.” Arthur has questioned the idea of the divine command theory because he thinks that morality does not rely only on religion, let alone anything else. This means that for Arthur, morality does not revolve entirely around religion it cannot even be said that it has a specific or actual basis. The final part of his discussion is his stand on John Dewey’s idea that morality is social. Arthur defined this as a person disregarding his own perspective in favour of the perspective of another person and for the sake of that other person and giving consideration as to how it would affect them.

What I Learned: On this topic, I have learned the definition of morality and religion. I have learned the difference and the similarity of the morality and religion with each other. At the end of

this topic, I have also learned that morality does not entirely depend on religion only sometimes and it is also possible for it to have no specific basis at all.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is John Arthur’s stand with regards to the divine command theory? How is religion different from morality? What is the divine command theory How are obligations towards animals derived? Why is morality social?

Review Questions 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? According to Arthur, morality tends to be an instance wherein we evaluate our behaviours and sometimes feel guilty about our certain actions this also involves our attitude towards other people’s behaviour. Religion, on the other hand is a person’s belief in the supernatural phenomena. Religion is the belief of supernatural forces which we pray to and worship. This refers to our belief towards God in which we pray to him and worship him. 2.

Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation? Religion isn’t necessary because people usually think of the consequences of their actions and a person also does what he thinks is right (what he knows is right). This means that most of the time, people would think first of what would happen if they did something and what people would think about them.

3.

Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Unlike the previous question which involved motives, this question involves moral guidance and knowledge. Arthur doesn’t think that religion is a necessary source of moral knowledge because there are a lot of issues which is better solved by considering the situation’s pros and cons rather than looking for answers in the controversial and difficult revelation route.

4.

What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? The divine command theory tells us that “God made us and all the world. Because of that He has an absolute claim on our obedience... From [this] it follows that a thing is not right simply because we think it is. It is right because God commands it.” Arthur is rejecting the said theory because for him, it is wrong to conclude that morality relies on religion alone. In fact, he thinks that there may be no basis for it at all.

5.

According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? Morality and religion relates to each other to the motives that people have. Religion is often necessary to do the right thing. Religion serves as a motivation for people and as we all know, morality is the instance wherein a person does the right or wrong thing. Another relation between the two is the historical influence of religion to morality.

6.

Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? Arthur said, “to think from the moral point of view, as opposed to the selfish one, for instance, demands that we reject our private, subjective perspective in favour of the perspective of others, envisioning how they might respond to various choices we might make.” This means that morality is social in a sense that we would reject our own perspective for the sake of others’ perspective and how they would be affected and respond to our choices.

Discussion Questions 1. Has Arthur refused the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? As far as I have understood, Arthur did not refuse the divine command theory. He just questioned the idea of divine command theory but it does not mean that he totally rejects the idea of it. He just made his point that we can never say that morality depends on religion alone which I would agree on. There are just some instances in which it would depend on religion but not all the time. 2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals? (Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to it in footnote 6.) Our obligations to nonhuman animals are derived from our conscience alone. It depends on our compassion and sympathy towards these nonhuman creatures created by God. 3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education? Moral education, as Dewey have said, means “thinking of education, listening to others, reading about what others think and do and reflecting within ourselves about our actions and whether we could defend them to others are part of the practice of morality itself”. I would say that a college ethics class does indeed count as a moral education because based on the definition given by Dewey, and observing our ethics, I would say that the things we do in our ethics class meet the description of moral education itself.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE: MASTER- AND SLAVE-MORALITY Quote: “The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgement: “What is injurious to me is injurious to itself”; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a creator of values. He honours whatever he recognises in himself: such morality is self-glorification.”

What I Expect To Learn: On this topic, I would love to know the concept of Master- and Slave-Morality and understand it well. I also want to know Friedrich Nietzsche’s stand in the said topic and also I want to know what about what he thinks is a good and healthy society.

Chapter Review: The main points of Nietzsche’s discussion is his view of a healthy society, the slaveand master-morality, he view on injury, violence and exploitation, a creator of values or a noble man and the will to power. According to Nietzsche’s discussion, a healthy society is a society where kingship and commonwealth is disregarded. He said that a healthy society must be regarded as a the significance and highest justification which would mean that there has to be people who, with a good conscience, would make a sacrifice, be submissive and lessen their value as person. In other words they are the imperfect men, slaves and instruments. This leads to the concept of slave- and master-morality. Master-morality refers to the superior and dominant people. They are the ones who have the strength, power, egoism and freedom. This description reminds me of the Nazis and the Japanese who conquered our country years back. They were powerful people who proved their strength by harming other people and threatening others. They considered themselves as superior people with power, strength, freedom and egoism. On the other hand, Slave-morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. They are the socalled slaves to the powerful. The people who remind me of this description are the Jews during the Nazis time, Filipinos during the Japanese occupation and the slaves of Egypt in the Bible. Nietzsche views injury, violence and exploitation as a means of survival. For him, these three are ways to show power and strength. One must cause harm, violence and exploitation in order to show their strength and power. For him, if you do not show “power and strength” by causing violence, injury and exploitation, you are then, not considered a strong person instead, you’re weak and a slave. He also discussed what a creator of values is or what a noble man is. This is in relation to the quote I have chosen and typed above. A creator of values disregards the rules of the society and the rules of God. A creator of values is his own judge which means that for him, the he is doing something right if he think he is doing something right regardless of whether he harms another person or not. Then, he also discussed the concept of will to power. This means, a person’s will to survive by being strong. Will to power means

doing whatever it takes to survive, through power and strength, no matter if they harm someone or not. In my opinion, Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas are really chaotic and extremely scary. If this is the case, there would be no peace and order which is necessary for what I would consider a healthy and good society. If we lived in a world where his ideas apply or at least during the time of the Nazis, the Japanese and other similar and dominant people, there would be a lot of war and a lot of people dying. It’s just a really really scary thought.

What I Learned: I learned at the end of Friedrich Nietzsche’s discussion the difference of slavemorality and master-morality. I have also learned Friedrich Nietzsche’s view in life which is that we have to be strong in order to survive. Moreover, I have also learned of Nietzsche’s stand on injury, violence and exploitation. Another thing I learned is what a creator of values and the concept of will to power.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What What What What What

is slave-morality? is master-morality? does a noble man regard himself? is a healthy society? does a creator of values mean?

Review Questions 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? For Nietzsche, a good and healthy society disregards itself as a kingship or a commonwealth. He said that a healthy society should be regarded as the significance and highest justification which would mean that there would be people who, with a good conscience submit and sacrifice to become imperfect men, slaves and instruments which define the whole concept of master-morality and slave-morality. 2.

What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation? Nietzsche thinks that injury, violence and exploitation are part of one’s life. One must cause injury, violence and exploitation in order to survive. His view is that for a person to be strong he must cause the three mentioned above or else, he will be a weak person. Nietzsche’s point is that one must be strong in order to survive and being strong mean being a source of injury, violence and exploitation or else you are considered weak.

3.

Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality. Nietzsche said that master-morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom while slave-morality emphasizes on weakness, submission, sympathy and love.

4.

Explain the Will to Power. Will to power is a person’s drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. As superior person follows the idea of master-morality while the latter follows the slave-morality. This means that a superior person would exercise his power towards the weak and would fight regardless of it being wrong or right.

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? Thinking about what the Nazis are, I would agree that Nietzsche’s writing is indeed inspiring Nazism. This is because the Nazis thought that they were superior to others. They practice their power and show their strength by harming and killing the weak. They show that they are strong as a means of survival. These actions of the Nazis are very similar to what Nietzsche’s concept of masterand slave-morality which states that in order to survive, one must show power and strength and be dominant than others. 2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”? A creator of values is a so-called noble man. He thinks highly of himself and for him, what is right and what is wrong is based on what is right and wrong for him regardless of what he thinks is right would harm other people or not.

MARY MIDGLEY: TRYING OUT ONE’S NEW SWORD Quote: “If there were really an isolating barrier, of course, our own culture could never have been formed. It is no sealed box, but a fertile jungle of different influences—Greek, Jewish, Roman, Norse, Celtic and so forth, into which further influences are still pouring— American, Indian, Japanese, Jamaican, you name it.”

What I Expect To Learn: What I expect to learn on this discussion is more about culture. I expect to understand more about Midgley’s idea of the differences of culture. Aside from that, I also expect to learn the concept of moral isolationism and the Japanese custom which is known as Tsujigiri.

Chapter Review: In this discussion, Mary Midgley simply explains the concept of moral isolationism. According to Midgley, moral isolationism is a concept that states that we cannot criticize the culture that is not of our own and we do not really understand. It is a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning. I would agree with Midgley on this one because in my point of view, we can never actually judge or criticize something that we do

not really understand. If we try to criticize something which we do not really understand, we are offending the person, culture or thing we criticize. We cannot criticize something which we don’t understand that well because obviously, we don’t really know the other cultures as much as we know our own. After all, there is a saying that first impressions do not last. In order for us to criticize a culture without actually going against moral reasoning, we have to understand that culture first and diverge ourselves into it, in other words, become part of that culture first in order for us to know it better. The next thing that Midgley discussed is the concept of the Japanese tradition called Tsujigiri. In English, it literally means crossroads-cut while as a Japanese custom it means that a samurai must test his sword first and make sure that it works properly. This means that the sword can slice someone with just one hit. If the samurai sword does not work properly, its owner is shamed, his ancestors are offended and he even lets his emperor down. In my point of view, even though this is a traditional Japanese custom, it is too heavy for a punishment for a sword simply not working properly. Then again, as I have noticed, the Japanese have very strict customs that show how much pride they have, aside from Tsujigiri, there is another custom worst than it which is Harakiri. Midgley has also discussed her idea of a separate and unmixed culture as unrealistic which I agree on. Not only do I agree with this because we have a country known for having a rich culture coming from different cultures such as Spain, Japan, China and America. I agree with her on this one as well because so far, I do not know of any country with a separate and unmixed culture which makes me think that this is indeed very unrealistic. I believe that all countries are rich in culture which are mixed and based from a different culture.

What I Learned: On Midgley’s discussion I learned the concept of moral isolationism which is that we cannot judge another culture different from ours. Midgley’s discussion made me understand that Nietzsche’s discussion previously even more because it made me realized that we can actually never conclude that Nietzsche is immoral or not and the same thing is for the Nazis. Of course, I also learned more about the Japanese custom specifically the Tsujigiri.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

According to Midgley, what is a favourable judgement? What is moral judgement? In line with the concept of moral isolationism, why can’t we judge other cultures? What is the isolating barrier? What is Tsujigiri?

Review Questions 1. What is “moral isolationism”? Moral isolationism is defined as the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. According to Midgley it is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning.

2. Explain the Japanese custom of Tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? Tsujigiri literally means “crossroads-cut”. It is a classical Japanese verb which means “to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer.” The samurai sword has to be tried out to make sure that it works properly. It should be able to slice someone with a single blow, if not it destroys the honour, offend the ancestors and even disappoints the emperor of the samurai sword’s owner. 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? For Midgley, what’s wrong with moral isolationism is that it is a doctrine of immoralism forbidding any moral reasoning and it carries a distressing logical difficulty. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? For Midgley, the basis for criticizing other cultures is one’s own culture. According to Midgley, we cannot criticize other culture if we cannot understand our own culture that well.

Discussion Questions 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not? I would have to disagree with Midgley’s assessment of Nietzsche is not as accurate and fair as it seems. In my opinion, you can never actually say that Nietzsche is an immoralist because of the fact that he just stated his own ideal society. No matter how scary his ideal society may be, we still cannot call him an immoralist just as we cannot conclude that the Nazis are immoralist. As Midgley said, we cannot criticize a culture that is not ours. Nietzsche’s culture and environment is different from that of Midgley’s so we could never say that he is an immoralist. It is possible that he is in Midgley’s view but if we look at it in Nietzsche’s perspective, it is possible that in his culture, being strong by harming others is a way of life and it is how they discipline other people. His ideal society actually reminds me of the Martial Law during Marcos’ time. We used to hate him because we see his ideals as violent and immoral ideals but now, we actually realized that he was one of the best presidents that the Philippines has ever had in its entire history. 2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain you answer. I would agree with Midgley on this one. Just looking at our own country’s past, we would immediately agree with Midgley because our country is that of mixed cultures. Spanish, Chinese, Malay, Japanese, English and a whole other bunch of cultures have been mixed with our own. A separate and unmixed culture is unrealistic because of the fact that in any country we go, it is usually composed of mixed cultures. If there is a country which has a separate and unmixed culture, it would be a very rare occasion.

JOHN STUART MILL: UTILITARIANISM Quote: “To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and grovelling as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparison by its German, French and English assailants.”

What I Expect To Learn: I expect to learn the Principle of Utility and what is utilitarianism in John Stuart Mill’s point of view. I also want to learn what higher and lower pleasures are as explained by Mill.

Chapter Review: The first thing on Mill’s discussion is the Principle of Utility. The Principle of Utility states that an action is considered right only when it causes happiness to other people and it is only right when pain is absent. On the other hand, actions are considered wrong when it brings about the opposite which is unhappiness and there is the presence of pain. This really confused me at first and when I finally came to an understanding with the concept of this, I really found it as disagreeable. I really don’t think that happiness is the absence of pain and that it is pleasure alone. For me, happiness is something beyond pleasure and aside from that, happiness isn’t really the absence of pain. Instead, happiness is one’s ability to look at pain positively. This means that he is able to accept pain, learn from it and become stronger because of it thus making us happier. The idea of higher and lower pleasures is really confusing. Although in my understanding, higher pleasure is when a person is not satisfied and easily contented. While a person of lower pleasures does not really have any standards instead, he is contented and satisfied with whatever he has already not trying to gain something better. If you ask me, higher pleasure is not better than lower pleasure and vice versa. I don’t really think that the other one’s better than the other. I think that there should only be moderation between the two.

What I Learned: At the end of this discussion, I learned the difference of higher pleasures and lower pleasures and the Principle of Utility. Other than that, I learned the concept and main idea of utilitarianism and happiness.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Based on the Principle of Utility, what actions are considered right? What actions are considered wrong? What is the Greatest Happiness Principle? Who is John Stuart Mill? What are the kinds of pleasure?

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. The Principle of Utility states that actions are right as long as it results to happiness while actions are wrong if it results to the opposite which is unhappiness. Lying and stealing are wrong basing it in the Principle of Utility because the Principle of Utility states that actions which bring unhappiness or sadness to people are wrong. Obviously, lying causes unhappiness because it questions of the trustworthiness of a person. On the part of the person being lied to, he would feel unhappy that the liar does not trust him enough to tell the truth. Meanwhile, stealing also causes unhappiness to other people for obvious reasons. Stealing takes away something very important to person. This something is closely attached to the person that when it is taken away from him, it makes him unhappy. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine? Mill said that it is degrading because a beast’s pleasure does not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. This means that a beast’s pleasure do not comply with what is considered as genuine happiness. 3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? The difference between the two is the amount of pleasure it gives or provides. The one with the higher pleasures requires or wants more to be happy than the one with the lower pleasures. This means that a person of higher pleasure is harder to be contented and satisfied in order to be happy unlike the latter one. 4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? Based on how I understood Mill’s discussion, the happiness of most people must be considered. This means that the happiness of most people is way more important and should be taken into consideration than one person alone. 5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility. Mill stated, "Happines is desirable, and the only desirable, as an endl all other things being only desirable as means to that end." Based on how I understood this, this means that the only thing that is desirable is happiness and nothing else beyond that is desirable.

Discussion Questions 1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think? Honestly speaking, I do not consider happiness as mere pleasure and moreover the absence of pain. For me, happiness is something beyond pleasure and something which is immeasurable. In my opinion, happiness is a feeling and it cannot be described since it is a feeling. Though it may seem that happiness is

indeed the absence of pain, I wouldn’t really say that happiness is the absence of pain because sometimes, pain causes us the happiness we are searching for. What I meant with this is that pain causes us to learn new things, to learn to stand up for ourselves and be stronger. If we are able to look at pain positively, I believe that it could lead to happiness. 2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? I wouldn’t really say that it convinced me higher pleasures, based on how I understood it means having standards which are high and hard to satisfy. In other words, higher pleasures call for more satisfaction and this also means that the person of higher pleasures is not contented with what he has. On the other hand, I wouldn’t say that I think lower pleasures are better because this means that the person does not aim high and regards himself lowly. For me, there has to be a balance between the higher and lower pleasures. 3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” Is this true or not? The golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth states that: “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself.” I believe that this is true because Mill’s principle of utility is for one to cause happiness to other people which show his love for other people. 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? Honestly, I do agree with it being defective somehow. I believe that it is defective in a sense that he states that happiness can be gained by pleasure and the absence of pain. For me, if there’s no pain, happiness wouldn’t be such a big deal at all and it would actually become pointless as there is no difference in it. While in the presence of pain, we can distinguish happiness making it a very special feeling.

JAMES RACHELS: THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM Quote: “Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipates good results. This is an extremely important notion, which explains why a great many philosophers have rejected Utilitarianism.”

What I Expect To Learn: My learning expectation for this topic is James Rachels’ stand on Utilitarianism. I also expect to learn about hedonism. Aside from that I also expect to learn the rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism.

Chapter Review: According to Rachels, the classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions which were: Actions are to be judged wrong or right solely in virtue of their consequences and only the ones with best consequence are considered right actions, The only thing which matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused and only those which provide more happiness than unhappiness are considered right actions, and The happiness of one person is equivalent to the happiness of another which means that the happiness of one person is not more important than the other because their happiness are considered to be equally important. The objection about justice is that one must bear false witness against the innocent for the greater good. Just like the example which Rachels gave, the witness must bear false witness against the victim in order for riots and executions to stop since it will bring about more “good” than telling the truth and trying to save the innocent. The objection of rights on the other hand is that actions are defensible if happiness outweighs unhappiness because this tells us that an action is right only when it causes more happiness than unhappiness. Finally, the objection of promises is that one cannot break a promise easily since it imposes an obligation. It can only be broken by very heavy gains or interferences such having to rush someone to the hospital.

What I Learned: At the end of Rachels’ discussion, I learned the concept of rule- and act-utilitarianism. I have also learned about the concept of hedonism and the classical utilitarianism. Not only that, I have also learned about the objections about justice, rights and promises.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is hedonism? What is rule-utilitarianism What is act-utilitarianism? Why is hedonism considered as a problem? How are actions judged as with regards to whether it’s right or wrong?

Review Questions 1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? These three that summarizes the idea of classical utilitarianism are: • Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters and only the ones with the best consequences are the right actions. • The only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. The only right actions are those which provide more happiness than unhappiness.

•

The happiness of one person is not more important than the happiness of another. Instead, both are considered equal.

2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? 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 a means of bringing it about. G.E. Moore suggests that there are three obvious intrinsic goods which are pleasures, friendships and aesthetic enjoyment and that right actions are those that increase the world’s supply of the said things. On the other hand, other utilitarian say have tried to bypass or ignore the question of how many things are good in themselves and saying that the only right actions are the ones with the best result. 3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises? The objection about justice is that in order to even out odds, one must bear false witness against the innocent person as it will be for the better good. As his example stated, if he bear false witness against the innocent, the riots and lynching would stop. If you weigh that against telling the truth in order to save the innocent, bearing false witness outweighs the truth. Meanwhile the objection about rights is that actions are defensible if they produce a favourable balance of happiness over unhappiness. In the case of the police and York, Rachels said that there may be more happiness from the pictures taken by the police officer than the unhappiness York has gained. The object about promises is that it imposes an obligation which is hard to escape. It can be broken only with very important costs such as you have to rush someone to the hospital while it cannot be easily broken with something of light weight such as breaking your promise because you felt lazy to do so. 4. Distinguish between rule- and act-utilitarianism. utilitarianism reply to the objections?

How

does

rule-

Rule-utilitarianism is rules which are established by reference to the principle and individual’s acts will be judged right or wrong by referring to the rules. Ruleutilitarianism, according to Rachels is the new version of act-utilitarianism which is the original theory. 5. What is the third line of defense? The third line of defense is a small group of contemporary utilitarians who had very different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments and these arguments point out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights and so on.

Discussion Questions 1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer. Truthfully, I don’t find this acceptable for the reason that I cannot simply reject my moral beliefs just so they won’t conflict with utilitarianism. For me, my moral beliefs weigh more than utilitarianism because these moral beliefs are things I have believed in for a very long time and I cannot imagine abandoning my beliefs just so that it would not conflict with utilitarianism. I am not against utilitarianism although I don’t really think I am a utilitarian and for me, my moral beliefs are more important than utilitarianism itself. 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? Basing on John Stuart Mill’s discussion, I would say that a utilitarian gives importance to the happiness and welfare of the greater good meaning of all people. Though it is not directly stated that the greater good include animals and bodies of water, I think that it is quite clear that a utilitarian must also give moral consideration to these as it may also cause happiness and unhappiness to people. 3. Rachels claims that merit should independent of utility. Do you agree?

be

given

moral

consideration

Analyzing the word merit and concluding that it refers to values, I agree that one must give moral consideration to it separate of utility because a person’s values is highly important.

IMMANUEL KANT: THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Quote: “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good which has to make use of these gifts of nature, and which for this reason has the term “character” applied to its peculiar quality.”

What I Expect To Learn: As the title implies, I expect to learn the categorical imperative as discussed by Immanuel Kant. Aside from that, I also expect to learn the hypothetical imperative and its difference from categorical imperative.

Chapter Review: Seriously speaking, this is by far the part or discussion that I did not understand that much. Actually, I barely understood Immanuel Kant’s point at all. Although, I did understand his concept of good will. It is not goo because of what it affects and accomplishes instead it is good because it is good by nature. As far as I understand, this means that good will is the innate and natural goodness that one has in him. While reading his discussion, he said that actions that are done not because of duty have no moral value. I disagree with this very much because for me, no matter what happens, whatever we do, it has a moral value. All our actions even if it is not our duty or obligation to do it have moral values and here I think I can enter the concept of volunteerism because actions done which are not because of our duties are actions which we do voluntarily and willingly.

What I Learned: I learned the concept of good will. I also learned the motive of duty.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Who is Immanuel Kant? What is the categorical imperative? What is hypothetical imperative? What is the motive of duty? What is the formula of the end in itself?

Review Questions 1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will. According to Kant, a good will is not good because of what it affects and accomplishes instead it is good will because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Kant said that categorical imperative states that one must act only according to that truism or maxim whereby he can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. On the other hand, hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance. For instance, if you are hungry, you have to eat something to fill your stomach. 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. As far as I understood what Kant said, he did not state any specific explanation to this. Actually, I did not understand this quite well.

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative using the language of means and end), and explain it. The second version of the categorical imperative states: “Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means but always at the same time as an ends.” I really do not understand this quite well although, the first thing that came to my mind which I would assume is the meaning of this is that we are the judge of ourselves. We are the ones who control our life and we are the ones who name what is right and what is wrong for us.

Discussion Questions 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 honestly think that the two versions of categorical imperative are much alike because of the fact that both somehow say that we control our own life and we are our own judge. 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. I beg to disagree with Kant on these terms. I disagree with him because I believe that there are actions which we do that can be considered to have great moral worth even though it is not our duty. For instance, if on my way home, I see a boy selling two more flowers, I can buy the remaining flowers so that the boy can go home already. It is not my duty to buy those flowers but due to my desire or want for the boy to get home early, I decide to buy the flowers. 3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism? Sadly, I cannot answer this straight because I do not really understand the deeper sense of the categorical imperative.

ARISTOTLE: HAPPINESS AND VIRTUE Quote: “With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But it makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity.”

What I Expect To Learn: I expect to learn from this chapter, Aristotle’s concept of happiness and virtue. I expect to learn the true meaning of happiness and virtue as defined by Aristotle. I also

would like to learn about how Aristotle views moral virtues and of course, I also want to learn why he thinks that a philosopher will be happier than anyone else.

Chapter Review: According to Aristotle, happiness is an activity of the soul. Sadly, most of us define happiness as pleasure in which we find enjoyment in material and very shallow things. This means that we find enjoyment and pleasure in things that do not usually last for a lifetime and we call these things or instances as happiness. On the other hand virtue is a state of character concerned with choice. Aristotle claims that virtue is a mean with regards to what is best and right. Virtue is something that allows us to decide on what is right and what is wrong. It helps us find the best in us that we cannot see through our eyes. In my understanding, this is how virtue relates to happiness. Another point which Aristotle has included in his discussion is the concept of moral virtue. According to Aristotle, moral virtue is something which we learn as a result of habit. We do not gain moral virtue by nature instead we gain it by result of habit and practicing it. As explained by Aristotle, moral virtue is a state of character that is a mean between an excess and a deficiency. We can gain happiness through contemplation and achieving moral virtue, Aristotle said. Then again, can all of us be really happy? I really doubt that all of us can be happy unless everyone learns to be contented and happy with things that are not of material or temporary value. I think that people would only be truly happy if they learn the true meaning and value of happiness which is way beyond the temporary and material possessions which we have come to love as it provides us with great pleasure.

What I Learned: On Aristotle’s discussion, I have learned the true value and meaning of happiness which is beyond all the material and temporary things. I have fully understood that pleasure is different from happiness and that we should not define happiness as pleasure. Another thing I learned is that philosophers are more likely to be happy because of the way they think. Unlike us, they can contemplate easily anytime and anywhere they want and contemplation allows them to relax and thus think well and clear resulting to genuine happiness. We, on the other hand, have become too attached and busy enjoying all of life’s pleasure because we tend to misinterpret happiness as pleasure.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is the meaning of genuine happiness? Is there a difference between happiness and pleasure? Would you agree that all of us can become happy? Why does Aristotle consider people enjoying life’s pleasures as beasts? What is virtue?

Review Questions 1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? Happiness, according to Aristotle happiness is an activity of the soul while virtue is a state of character concerned with choice. Virtue is a mean with regard to what is best and right an extreme. Happiness and virtue are related, upon my understanding of what I’ve read, in sense that virtue is something that allows us to decide on what is right and what is wrong and find the best thing in us that we cannot see through our eyes. Pleasure is related to happiness since ironically, a lot of people define happiness as pleasure, as something that gives us enjoyment like money and video games. 2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. Aristotle explains moral virtue as virtue that comes about as a result of habit. It does not arise by nature which, in other words, means that it is a virtue that we learn. Moral virtue, as explained by Aristotle, is generally a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. An example that he has given is the virtue of courage, it is an excess of rashness and a deficiency of cowardice. A different example that I can think of myself is innocence, it is an excess of child-mindedness and a deficiency or lack of knowledge. 3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? Basing it on what has been discussed I would believe that it is indeed possible for everyone to be happy. We just need to have moral virtue which we can achieve through contemplating, as Aristotle has said. Despite this, there is also a part of me that doubts that everyone could be happy. The people whom I consider cannot be happy are the people who consider happiness as pleasure. These are the people who are very attached to material possessions like money and food. Happiness is not something of material value, instead happiness is something although we cannot see it but we can still feel it such as love.

Discussion Questions 1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? Opinion-wise pleasure, are of two kinds, one are those of material value and one of sentimental or emotional. Pleasure gained by material things is temporary and this are perhaps the pleasure suited for beasts that Aristotle was talking about. This is what’s wrong with pleasure and I would agree that this kind of pleasure is suitable for beasts. On the other hand, emotional pleasure such as love is a good kind of pleasure. It is something that we feel though we cannot see it. The main point is that too much having too much pleasure is bad and this is what you can say a pleasure suitable for beasts.

2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not? Aristotle claimed this because of a philosopher’s ability to contemplate which most of us fail to do so. Even in places we have to or contemplate in such as retreat houses, our rooms and Churches, we fail to do so. We have become too preoccupied and “busy” enjoying life’s pleasures around us like our mobile phones, iPods and food. These things have become a hindrance for us to contemplate while a philosopher can contemplate anytime and in any place he wants to and as Aristotle said, contemplating leads to happiness. Contemplating, in fact has lead philosophers to different perspectives with regards to things such as life, love and of course happiness itself. Philosophers in my opinion will be happier than anybody else because they gain the best thing they could ever gain, happiness that is eternal and not temporary.

JOEL FEINBERG: THE NATURE AND VALUE OF RIGHTS Quote: “Many philosophical writers have simply identified rights with claims. The dictionaries tend to define “claims,” in turn as “assertions of right,” a dizzying piece of circularity that led one philosopher to complain—“WE go in search of rights and are directed to claims, and then back again to rights in bureaucratic futility.””

What I Expect To Learn: On this chapter I expect to learn the idea and concept of rights. I also expect to learn about the logical correlativity of rights and duties. Also, I expect to learn about claimrights, personal desert and sovereign right-monopoly.

Chapter Review: The first thing that was discussed here is Nowheresville which is a world imagined up by Feinberg. Nowheresville is a world very much alike to our own with the main difference that people in Nowheresville (Nowheresvillians), do not have right in contrast to us who have. Feinberg came up with this world in order to demonstrate and prove to everyone the importance of rights. The next he discussed is the discussed is the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties which states that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. He didn’t really explain rights entailing other people’s duties and instead focused on duties entailing other people’s rights. As far as I understand, he has focused on this to prove whether it is true or not. Personal desert means that upon doing something good, a person gives something that is due for him which I don’t think is applicable in Nowheresville while sovereign rightmonopoly means that a person may or may not receive something which is due to him but if he doesn’t receive anything, he cannot complain for they are in a place without any rights.

What I Learned: I learned that upon the absence of rights, we would have a hard time because there is a high possibility for us not to be treated fairly. I also learned the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. Also, I’ve learned the concepts of personal desert and sovereign right-monopoly.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is moral worth? Who is Joel Feinberg? What are charitable contributions? What is the most conspicuous difference between us and Nowheresville? How does Feinberg demonstrate the importance of rights?

Review Questions 1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world? Nowheresville is a world imagined by Feinberg which is very similar to our own world although in this world, people have no rights. The main difference of Nowheresville to our real world is that rights are not present in Nowheresville. This means that people cannot demand or claim just treatment 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? All duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Feinberg said that only the first part of the doctrine, which was that all duties entail other people’s rights, is our concern and is what he focused on. He said that this is both true and untrue. Duty is associated with actions that are due someone else which means that duties are correlated with the rights of those to whom the duty is owed. 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? “Personal desert is when a person is said to deserve something good from us what is meant in parts is that these would be a certain propriety in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of the kind of person he is, perhaps, or more likely, in virtue of some specific thing he has done.” On my understanding of this statement, this would be something that would not work in Nowheresville because people in Nowheresville don’t have any rights which mean that they may or may not be treated fairly. 4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? It is the idea of deserving good or bad treatment from others. This means that a person can give a reward to someone who he thinks has done something good

while he can also punish that person if he thinks that he has done something wrong. This idea would fit in perfectly in Nowheresville because since there are no rights, a person can give rewards or punishments by will and if they fail to give or not to give rewards or punishments, the person who deserves those does not have any right to complain because of the absence of rights. 5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? A right is a kind of claim and a claim is an assertion of right. These two are usually confused with each other as the same thing. As for why Feinberg thinks they are morally important is not that clear to me.

Discussion Questions 1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not? I’d say that he is making a pretty convincing case. Fact of the matter is that in my view, he actually made a good point of the importance of rights by making up Nowheresville wherein there is an absence of rights. Through this world, he was able to show us that without rights, we can actually be treated unfairly. 2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right? Like I said before, I did not understand the concept of claim-right so I don’t think I can give a pretty good noncircular definition of claim-right.

RONALD DWORKIN: TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY Quote: “The Constitution fuses legal and moral issues, by making the validity of a law depend on the answer to complex moral problems, like the problem of whether a particular statute respects the inherent equality of all men. This fusion has important consequences for the debates about civil disobedience.... But it leaves open two prominent questions”

What I Expect To Learn: I expect to learn meaning of strong sense. I also want and expect to learn what legal and moral rights are and how they are different from each other. I also expect to learn the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens. Also, I expect to learn the two important ideas that are behind the institution of rights. Chapter Review: The concept of right in the strong sense means that when a person has a right, nobody is allowed or can interfere with that person towards their right. This means for example, I have the right to watch television anytime I want. Nobody can interfere with that right and force me away from the television.

Legal rights are rights which fall under the law while moral rights are rights that do not fall under the law but are sometimes subjected to law. Moral rights are more closely related to a person’s conscience and his own humanity.

What I Learned: At the end of the discussion, I learned the concept of right in the strong sense. I also learned what moral and legal rights are and how they are different from each other.

Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Who is Ronald Dworkin? Why do you have to take rights seriously? What are legal rights? What are moral rights? What is the institution of rights?

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? By strong sense, Dworkin meant that when a person has a right, nobody can or is allowed to interfere with that person towards their right. I cannot really name any rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution as I am not an American citizen nor have I ever been there. 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. To simply explain this, legal rights are those that are under the law while moral rights are rights that are not under the law but are sometimes combined into a law. 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 the society and has great plausibility. The second one is the more familiar idea of political equality that supposes that the weaker members of a political community are entitle to the same concern and respect of their government as the most powerful members have secured for themselves. The second model is also the one that Dworkin finds more attractive. 4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights? The two important ideas behind the institution are that it must require an act of faith from the minorities and that the government will not re-establish respect of law without giving the law some claim to respect.

Discussion Questions 1. Does a person have a right to break a law? Why or why not? It depends on whose point of view we’re going to talk about here. If I answer this on Dworkin’s point of view, then a person will have a right to break a law because of his idea of right in the strong sense. On the other hand, in my point of view, I don’t think a person has a right to break a law because it would obviously be against the law. 2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism? (See the footnote about institutional utilitarianism.) Yes because Mill’s utilitarianism implies only actions that bring happiness and freedom are right and those that don’t are wrong. In relation to Dworkin’s article, he says that if a person has a right, nobody can interfere with that person and on these ideas we can see a very big similarity between them which is promoting freedom. 3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not? Yes, he’d accept the concept of rights in the strong sense because it gives importance to freedom of a person.