Cmp Scrbd

The copyright notice shall be in the form Philippine Copyright 2009 by Randee Ceasar T. Bato

Book Reviews on Contemporary Moral Problems Seventh edition Chapter One- Ethical Theories

Randee Ceasar T. Bato All rights reserved 2009

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism Library Reference: N/A Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “the agents merely doing what he most wants to do” For me, this quote is an example of unselfish act, because the agent only thinks what he wants to do, basically for himself without thinking the others. This is the first argument in psychological egoism. Learning Expectation: My expectation for this is to learn what this Egoism and Moral Scepticism is all about, because for me the word has its depth meaning that everyone should understand to have a greater view of ethics. Actually, I am not good in philosophy, because it needs much larger view of seeing things, which of course I am not in good at. Review: The first part of this chapter explains the Egoism and Moral Septicism. But before anything else let me first introduce the author of this topic none other than James Rachels, he is a University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham as what it was stated in this chapter. This author had written books that tackle on philosophy. To have a view of Egoism, let me give you an idea on what is it all about, according to the author, egoism is divided into two, and these are psychological and ethical egoism. The first explains on the selfishness of a person, meaning these people would actually do things because they want to and also they have benefits of doing it so. Whether we admit it or not, the selfishness is actually in our nature, it is just a matter on how we handle that kind of selfishness. Then for ethical egoism, it is another way around, meaning it is an opposite of psychological egoism or unselfish way of doing things. Humans do things because we want to and also it is where we feel our interests. Our interest serves our motivator to do things. Doing things that are in our interests do not give us a tiring feeling, but rather we enjoy it.

What I’ve learned: I have learned about egoism, what this thing is all about, and how it affects our way of living. We know in our self what kind of a person we are, it maybe, we are little selfish, selfish as the word implies, or a man who doesn’t think only for himself, but rather who thinks that can give a benefit to all. Questions: 1. Who will judge if we are selfish or not? 2. Does it really affect the others? 3. If doing the ethical egoism, is there assurance that no one will become poor? 4. These ideas will help me to become a better person? How? 5. How can these ideas contribute to a person?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source:

James Rachels “Egoism and Moral Skepticism,” from A New Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Steven M Cahn. (Harper & Row, (1971). Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience Library Reference: N/A Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “Without religion or religious motivation, people could not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide people guidance in their search for the correct course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong” This quote is actually true, because for me religion serves as our guide to see if our actions are really accepted in the views of other people. Religion will decide if what we are doing is in bad or good, but of course will actually depend on the point of view of a person, whether what he is doing is good or bad. We can not please that person that it is wrong or right, his/her conscience will determine of his/ her actions. The bottom line of this quote is that religion is very important in our lives. Learning Expectation: I would like to learn more things about religion, how this religion will help us to determine the good from wrong acts. Is it morality and conscience depend on religion? Maybe yes, but all I want is to know how. Our conscience is the answer to do good things? Because from what I knew about conscience, if you have conscience of what you are doing, it means that you know that what you are doing is good. So reading this material hope will increase my knowledge on these things. Review: Basically this part of the chapter talks about religion, morality and conscience as what the title stated. For me, religion will enhance your morality, meaning this will give you deep understanding about good things. Is it true that without religion or religious motivation people could no longer be expected to do right thing? After reading this theories regarding religion, it actually answers my questions. Religion is very vital for us human being, because it will really give a help to distinguish the good things from bad things. Our conscience will now enter to judge if what he have done was really a good thing or a bad thing,

What I’ve learned: I learned how important religion is, and how it really affects in our lives. The impact of our religion in ourselves will determine what kind of a person we are.

Integrative Questions: 1. How religion affects our morality? 2. Our morality depends on our religion? 3. Can we live without religion? 4. is there any person living in doing good things but does not have any religion? 5. Can we just rely on our conscience?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source:

John Arthur,” Religion, Morality, and Conscience,” from m Morality and Controversies 4th ed., ed. John Arthur(Premise Hall, 1996), pp. 21-28. Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slavery Morality Library Reference: N/A Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will of Life.” Learning Expectation: I would like to learn more things about Master and Slavery Morality, how this Master and Slavery Morality will help us to determine the good from wrong acts. How can one master the slavery of morality? These are some questions at the back of my mind. Review: The author of this topic is Friedeich Nietzsche, for the acknowledgment of his work, let me first introduce him using the information given in this reading material. He was German poet and philosopher who is often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and deconstruction. According to the author, he states that a healthy society should allow people with power to exercise their “will to power” their drive toward the domination and exploration of the poor. We all know that a person who is great already mastered his morality. A person, who mastered his morality, has these strengths, power, and liberty to view things according to what he thinks. On the other side person who has this inferiority feeling, are those who will never succeed because they have the quality of becoming weak. What I’ve learned: I have learned the Master and Slavery Morality, and how it really affects to our way of living. It only matters on how we view things in our life.

Questions: 1. A healthy society is applicable for today’s setting? 2. How will you know if you have a healthy society? 3. A healthy society means no one is poor? 4. How can a community attain a healthy society? 5. Is it hard to attain a healthy society?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond and Good Evil, translated b Heken Zimmern, pp. 223-32(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books). Copyright 1989. Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: Mary Midgley – Trying Out one’s New Sword Library Reference: N/A

Quote: “Tsujigiri, literally “crossroads cut.” A samurai sword had to tried out because, if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Otherwise, the warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honor offend his ancestors, and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed, and the wayfarer had to be expended. Any wayfarer would do- provided of course, that he was not another Samurai. What I expect to learn: I would like to learn what “try out one’s new sword” means. How can it affect in our lives, and how can we attain this. These are some questions at the back of my mind. Review: To begin with, let me first define what this Moral isolationism is all about using the information given in this reading material. Moral isolationism is a doctrine of immoralism, because it hinders any moral reasoning. It is also mentioned that no one can understand culture except his own, for me it is true that is why some cultures have these conflicts with each other, because they don’t understand others beliefs, they only rely on their culture without knowing that other cultures might give a greater view of a subject matter. Misunderstanding between different cultures is not good, because sometimes they tend to forget to give respect to each other that may turned into a case of racism. We must know how to back off whenever we already stepped the pride of other cultures. The isolating barriers determine the differences of cultures. Trying out’s new sword relates to the Japanese culture wherein it describes tsujigiri which means trying out a new sword to another man’s body. We can do lot of things to aid the isolation of cultures from our culture, by just

simply reading other culture’s beliefs may help us to understand their culture. Basically, the main point of this theory is that we must learn how to respect, understand, and appreciate other cultures.

What I learned:





Moral isolationism How to appreciate other culture The effects of Moral isolationism Isolation barriers

Integrative Questions: 1.

What are the effects of isolationism?

2. How can it be applied to our daily living? 3.

What is isolationism?

4. How can we understand other cultures? 5.

What is tsujigiri?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Trying Out One’s New Sword by Mary Midgley. Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: John Stuart Mill – Utilitarianism Library Reference: N/A Quote: “It has been remarked, that questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term.” What I expect to learn: I would like to learn what “utilitarianism” means. How can it affect in our lives, and how can we attain this. These are some questions at the back of my mind. Review: To have a first view of utilitarianism, let me define utility using this reading material. The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. This information states that if we experience happiness it simply means that we have done good things, it maybe for the benefit of ourselves or to other people, but if we feel so much pain, it is just other way around, because we have done bad things that affects ourselves as a person or made distressful feeling to others. The bottom line of this theory is basically doing something that can boost pleasure for us that will result to happiness. But to think of it Happiness is more than pleasure, because in pleasure you will just relax for a matter span of time only, unlike in the happiness you will feel the contentment. We must understand the feelings of others by simply doing good things that will benefit us a person and also will give benefits to other people.

What I learned: • • • •

Utilitarianism the difference between happiness and pleasure The importance of happiness The principle of utility

Integrative Questions: 1.

What does it mean relating to the principle of utility?

2.

What is utilitarianism?

3. How does it affect our lives? 4. Explain utilitarianism 5. How can we attain happiness?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: From Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories James Rachels – The Debate over Utilitarianism Library Reference: N/A Quote: “The utilitarianism doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.” (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism [181] ) What I expect to learn: I would like to learn what “The Debate over Utilitarianism” means. How can it affect in our lives, and how can we attain this. These are some questions at the back of my mind. Review: The book says that there are three propositions of classical utilitarianism, and using this reading material, I will mention the three prepositions. First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Right actions are, simply, those that have not the best consequences. Second, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Third, in calculation the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Then it also mentioned the difference between Act –Utilitarian and rule – Utilitarian. Actutilitarian would tempt to bear false witnesses against the innocent man because the consequences of that particular act would be good; while in rule- utilitarianism states that don’t bear false witness against the innocent is faithfully adhered to. In the Act –Utilitarian people used to make false witnesses against other people for them to have an outcome of good, and this thing is not good for others, because it mislead other people in good outcome, it only benefits the one who made the action, and for rule – utilitarianism it is the other way around, because it hinders people to make false witnesses against to other people. It is accepted compare with the Act – Utilitarian, because these will help other people. It doesn’t only think of himself, but rather other people. What I learned: ·

The difference of Act and Rule Utilitarian

·

Utilitarianism

·

Ideas presented on defending utilitarianism

· ·

Justice Rights

Integrative Questions: 1. What is utilitarian? 2. What is Act Utilitarian? 3. What is Rule Utilitarian? 4. What is the first line of defense? 5. What is the second line of defense?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: From James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw – Hill Publishing Company, 1986).

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories Immanuel Kant – The Categorical Imperative Library Reference: N/A 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, judgment, 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.” What I expect to learn: I would like to learn what “Categorical Imperative” means. How can it affect in our lives, and how can we attain this. These are some questions at the back of my mind.

Review: Before anything else let me give you guys an idea about good will. What is good will? Using this reading material it explains good will as it is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes- because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone-that is good in itself. As a human beings we know what is good will, and how it affects us a person. My idea on good will is that , we do things because we want them to do voluntarily, without relying on the external forces that affects our actions. Then it also explains what is Categorical imperative “Act only in that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. For hypothetical imperative the ordinary reason of mankind also agrees with this completely in its practical judgments and always has the aforesaid principle before its eyes.

What I learned: • • •

The good will The categorical Imperative How it affects our lives

Integrative Questions: 1.

What is the good will?

2. How can it affects our lives? 3. Reasons of doing in a good will base? 4. What is the outcome of good will? 5. What makes us pursue doing good will?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Immanuel Kant, “The Categorical Imperative,” from the Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals trans. H.J. Paton (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc. 1948).

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories Aristotle – Happiness and Virtue Library Reference: N/A Quote: “All human beings seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” What I expect to learn: I would like to learn what “Happiness and Virtue” means. How can it affect in our lives, and how can we attain this. These are some questions at the back of my mind.

Review: On the first part of this theory, it is mentioned that there are two kinds of virtue, and these are moral and intellectual. It the book it explains the moral virtues, and it states there that moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. It simply means that moral virtue is something about the goodness of the outcome of how we think and our act. We can attain Happiness and virtue, if we only follow the morality. Because as I have said in my previous book review, if we have done good things, the outcome of it will be happiness and at the same time we gain virtue. The notion of happiness today is much different from the notion before, because nowadays people think that happiness can achieve if we are in the state of pleasure and if we have the wealth that we are asking for. For me, if you have a good health, you are in the state of happiness, but people don’t think in that way, because for them happiness is the result of having pleasure. What I learned: • • •

Happiness and virtue Pleasure the differences between Pleasure and Happiness

Integrative Questions: 1.

What is Pleasure?

2.

What is virtue?

3.

What is happiness?

4. How can one achieve happiness? 5. How can one person know what he is doing is in line with virtue?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Aristotle, Happiness and Virtue, Books I: 3-5,7-9, 13; II 1,6,7, 8 from Ethica Nicomachea, trans. W. D. Ross in the Oxford Translation of Aristotle, vol. 9(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925).

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: Joel Feinberg – The Nature and Value of Rights Library Reference: N/A Quote: “No action can have supreme kind of worth, unless its whole motivating power derives from the required by duty.” What I expect to learn: - I would like to learn the “The Nature and Value of Rights”. - The rights of a person - The nature of Rights Review: Let me give you first an idea about Nowheresville with the help of this reading material. Nowheresville introducing the idea of duty into and letting the sense of duty be a sufficient motive for many beneficent and honorable actions. It is different because duties are permitted that smuggled with the rights. When the notion of requirement is in clear focus it is likely to seem the only element in the idea of duty that is essential, and the other component notion that a duty is something due someone else drops off. Thus, in the widespread but derivative usage “duty tends to be used for action we feel we must do. This is a concept of personal desert. When a person is said to deserve something good fro us what is meant in parts is that there would be certain propriety in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of some specific thing he has done. We must value our rights in a sense that we should know the nature of our rights. We must understand this statement “If a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.

What I learned: • • •

The Nature and Value of Rights Nowheresville Rights and duties

Integrative Questions: 1.

What is Rights?

2.

What is duty?

3.

What is Nowheresville?

4.

What is the sovereign monopoly of rights?

5.

What does it mean required by duty?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: From Joel Feinberg, “The Nature and Value of Rights,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 4 (1970) – 243 – 57, 1970, Martinus Nyhoff Publishers Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: Ronald Dworkin - Taking Rights Seriously

Library Reference: N/A Quote: “Conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. They disagree, when they do, over the different issue of what the State’s response should be. Both parties do think that sometimes the State should prosecute. But this is not inconsistent with the proposition that the man prosecuted did the right thing breaking the law.” What I expect to learn: -

How to take right seriously What are effects of our rights What will happen if we take our rights seriously

Review:

According to Dworkin people have the right to do something, and then it is wrong to interfere with them. The notion of rights rests on the idea of treating people with self-respect as members of the moral community, including the idea of political equality. These ideas define the right in the strong sense. We must treat other people with self respect, so that you will have a healthy community that lives in a moral society. Taking our rights seriously is very important for us to have the happiness we are longing for. If we know our rights, it means that we can live with integrity and dignity that one person should have.

What I learned: •

Our rights

•

How to take rights seriously

•

The result of knowing our rights

Integrative Questions: 1. How to take rights seriously? 2. How will someone break the law? 3. What are the rights? 4. DO we need to take our rights seriously? 5. What will happen in taking rights seriously?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press). Pp. 184-05. Copyright 1977, 1978, 1985 by Ronald Dworkin.

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories John Rawls – A Theory of Justice

Library Reference: N/A Quote: “Justice as fairness begins, with one of the general of all choices which persons might make together, namely with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” What I expect to learn: -

What is justice What a theory of justice dictates How it affects our lives Is it for everyone?

Review: We all know that each person has its own point of view regarding justice. But to have a formalize view about justice, John Rawls who is a professor of philosophy at Harvard University, and the author of Justice As Fairness, according to him there are two principles of justice. The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. The theory of Rawls, states that these are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves For me justice is something that should prevail in this world, so that there will be no problems regarding taking advantage over the other. Because in real setting, not all of us receive equal justice, because those people who receive justice are those people who have the power and money, but it should not be the case, because justice should be given equally no matter what the statues of a person, whether he is poor or rich.

What I learned: -

What is justice What a theory of justice dictates How it affects our lives

-

Justice as fairness

Is it for everyone?

Integrative Questions: 1. What is justice? 2. What do you men by justice as fairness? 3. Is justice applicable for everyone? 4. How can everyone attain justice? 5. Give the two principles of justice?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Theory of Justice by John Rawls (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). pp. 11-16 , 60 -65. Copyright 1971 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories: Annette Baier – The Need for More than Justice

Library Reference: N/A Quote: “Justice Perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory. For care perspective it is a felt concern for the good of others and for community with them.”

What I expect to learn:

- What are care perspectives? - To know the need for more than justice - How justice affects our lives? Review: Everyone wants to have justice, so we all seeking for it. If everyone will have an equal justice, no one will be deprived and underestimate because there will be laws that permeates justice to prevail. People will become stronger if they will have this so called justice. Like for example those people who make a rally, these people want to have a fair way of living. Their voices will serve as their main weapon to tell the world what are their aspirations. We fight for justice, because this thing is for everyone, we must have equal rights and it is given to anybody. No one should have more rights over the other, because we are created equally, so we must have equal rights to have a good justice. For me, I salute these people in the judiciary not just because my Mom and my Dad is part of that, but rather as I look at it, all the decisions that these justices had been made are in the accordance of the law. There was a time that our judiciary had a scandal, but because of the good leadership of the justices to retain the integrity that they have for the long time, the scandal easily banished.

What I learned:

- care perspectives - the need for more than justice - the effects of justice

Integrative Questions: 1. How to have justice? 2. Is it for free? 3. How will you if someone violate your rights?

4. Is there any thing that is much important than our rights? 5. What do you mean by counterculture?

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Annette C. Baier, “The Need for more than Justice,” from Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Vol. 13, 1988, published by University of Calgary Press.

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism Review Questions: 1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story? - Some of the questions that can get from the Legend of Gyges about morality are the

following; Is it right to help the prisoners to get out from the jail? Would you kill someone for the benefit of yours? These are some questions that questioned the morality. 2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. - Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do,

while ethical egoism is the view that regardless of how men do in fact behave, they have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interests. 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? - The first argument if we describe one person’s action as selfish and another

person’s action as selfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases. There are two set of actions in this first argument, these are set of actions which we may not want to do, but we do anyway as means to an end which we want to achieve, and second case, actions that we do, not because we want to, nor even because there is an end which we want to achieve, but because we feel ourselves under an obligation to do them. The second argument states that the action is “unselfish” only at a superficial level of analysis. 4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

- The 1st confusion is selfishness with interest, the second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other regarding motives, and the 3rd confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. 5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument? - A man who any sympathy at all would sorely recognizable as a man and that is

what makes ethical egoism such a disturbing doctrine in the first place. 6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help htoers? How can the egoist reply?

- We shouldn’t submit hurt others, but rather help them for us to have a virtue as part

of our obligation, and doing these actions would harm others. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer? - Yes, for us to know the right action. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they don’t know? - Yes. 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? - Not, because he acts for the benefit and not to his interest.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: James Rachels “Egoism and Moral Skepticism,” from A New Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Steven M Cahn. (Harper & Row, (1971).

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Review Questions: 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? - Arthur discusses that there are three ways morality has been thought to depend on

religion: that without religious motivation people could not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide the guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong. He claims that morality is a social, the goodness to do the duty, rights, and obligations. 2. Why inst religion necessary for moral motivation? - The religious motives are far from the only ones people have. We were raised to be a

decent person, and that’s what we are, so it is clear that many motives for doing the right thing have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. 3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge - Because no one sure his or her religion is the right one 4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? - The divine command theory means that God has the same sort of relation to moral

law as the legislature has to statutes it enacts: without God’s commands there would be no moral rules. Arthur rejected this theory because there is no objective explanation of the difference between the right and wrong. 5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

- According to him, morality is influenced by religion, as is religion by morality. 6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? - What is right, and accords with the true dictates of conscience, might in fact not

meet the approval of others. Conscience is “social” not in the sense that morality is determined by surveying what others in society think.

Discussion Questions: 1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? - It can be defended that without GOd's commands there would be no moral issues,

just as without a legislature there would be no statutes. 2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals? - Doing the right thing for the benefit of the nonhuman animals, because it is our

obligation to preserve them. 3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?

-

Yes, because it discusses some acts that can be classified by moral or immoral

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: John Arthur,” Religion, Morality, and Conscience,” from m Morality and Controversies 4th ed., ed. John Arthur(Premise Hall, 1996), pp. 21-28.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality Review Questions: 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? - Nietzsche characterizes a good healthy society should allow superior individuals to

exercise their “will to power” their drive to toward to domination and exploitation of the inferior. 2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation? - One should put will on a par with that of others; this may result in a certain rough

sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given. 3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality. - Master morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as

distinguished from a “slave morality” that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and love. 4. Explain the Will to Power. - Based on my understanding the “will to power” is one’s determination to have

domination over the other, and one’s willingness to gain authority. 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? -

It needs to be justified, because these things will serve as a guide for everyone.

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

- A creator of values should consider actions that are morally accepted. In this case you will not hurt the feeling of others, but rather help them to be inspired to do good deeds. Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond and Good Evil, translated b Heken Zimmern, pp. 223-32(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books). Copyright 1989.

Mary Midgley: Trying Out one’s New Sword Review Questions: 1. What is “moral isolationism”? - Moral isolationism is a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral

reasoning, and from the views of anthropologists, it is where we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. 2. Explain the Japanese customer of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask aabout this custom? - The meaning of tsujigiri is to” try out one’s new sword on a chance of wayfarer” ,

Literally “crossroads-cut”. These are questions that Midgley asks from the culture; does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? - According to Midgley moral isolationism it should not forced upon us, and indeed

that it makes no sense at all. People usually take it up because they think it is a respectful attitude to other cultures. In fact, it is not respectful. Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? - The isolating barrier is the basis of criticizing other cultures, because without the

isolating barrier there will be no cultures formed. Discussion Questions: 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not? -

No, because everyone has its own belief in which we must respect.

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

-

Yes, because there is no such thing as separate cultures, it is just that there is an isolation barrier.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Trying Out One’s New Sword by Mary Midgley

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, sucha as lying and stealing.

- The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they

promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?

- According to him, they are accusers, who represent human nature in a

degrading light, since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. 3. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

- For him, the happiness to be considered is those human beings, because they

faculties more elevated than animal appetites. 4. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.

- The principle of utility is basically doing something that can boost pleasure for

us that will result to happiness.

Discussion Questions: 1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think? - Happiness is more than pleasure, because in pleasure you will just relax for a matter

span of time only, unlike in the happiness you will feel the contentment. 2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones?

- Yes, but of course we must still consider others preferable.

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? - It is true. 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?

- It is defective in a sense that we can not sustain happiness, because there is no such thing as constant except change.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: From Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? - First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.

Right actions are, simply, those that have not the best consequences. Second, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Third, in calculation the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. 2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? - The problem that arises with Hedonism is that it misunderstands the nature of

happiness. For the defenders, happiness is a response we have to the attainment of things that we recognize a goods, independently and in their own right. 3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?

- Justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and merits. Rights are moral entitlements that one should have equally. Promise is a transaction of different parties, whether to render service or give something as what they have discussed. 4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?

- Act-utilitarian would tempt to bear false witnesses against the innocent man because the consequences of that particular act would be good; while in ruleutilitarianism states that don’t bear false witness against the innocent is faithfully adhered to. 5. What is the third line of defense? - The third defense states that our moral common sense is, after all, not necessarily

reliable. It may incorporate various irrational elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, our religion and the general culture.

Discussion Questions: 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 -

It is not acceptable, because we should still rely to our moral beliefs

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? - It only considers human beings. 3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

- Yes

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: From James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw – Hill Publishing Company, 1986).

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative Review Questions: 1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will. - A good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes- 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. - Categorical imperative is this “Act only in that maxim through which you can at the

same time will that it should become a universal law”. For hypothetical imperative the ordinary reason of mankind also agrees with this completely in its practical judgments and always has the aforesaid principle before its eyes. 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. - It will serve as its principle, and must so serve it if duty is not be everywhere an

empty delusion and a chimerical concept. 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and ends). And explain it. -

We leave unsettled whether what we call duty may not be in empty concept, we shall still be able to show at least what we understand it and what the concept means.

Discussion Questions: 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. - The two versions of the categorical imperative just have different expressions of

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

-

No, because you can never justified immoral acts

Some of the answers are taken in this source. Source: Immanuel Kant, “The Categorical Imperative,” from the Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals trans. H.J. Paton (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc. 1948).

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue Review Questions 1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to pleasure? Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Pleasure will give artificial happiness in a short span of time. 2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. According to Aristotle, moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Some examples are; a man has a character that knows how to respect others opinions. Another would be, a situation wherein a student asked to cheat during exams by his classmate, but because of his good conscience he avoided.

3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? Everyone in our society is possible to gain happiness; it will just depend on how one person perceives to meet one’s contentment, but of course with the accordance of virtue.

Discussion Questions 1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if Anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? Life of pleasure will become wrong if it exceeds to the limit of the perfect virtue, and this thing is not good to people who committed this kind of act. 2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else, Why is This? Do you agree or not? I agree, because Philosopher can contemplate truth, and he is the most self sufficient. Some of the answers are taken in this source. Source: Aristotle, Happiness and Virtue, Books I: 3-5,7-9, 13; II 1,6,7, 8 from Ethica Nicomachea, trans. W. D. Ross in the Oxford Translation of Aristotle, vol. 9(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925).

Joel Feinber: The Nature and Value of Rights Review Questions: 1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world? - Nowheresville introducing the idea of duty into and letting the sense of duty be a

sufficient motive for many beneficent and honorable actions. It is different because duties are permitted that smuggled with the rights. 2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine? - When the notion of requirement is in clear focus it is likely to seem the only

element in the idea of duty that is essential, and the other component notion that a duty is something due someone else drops off. Thus, in the widespread but derivative usage “duty tends to be used for action we feel we must do. 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? - When a person is said to deserve something good fro us what is meant in parts is

that there would be certain propriety in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of some specific thing he has done. 4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? - Sovereign monopoly of rights it is the ruling because of the rights to control. 5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?\ - Claim rights, these are the demands of the person that are related to the right of a

person. , and also a petition to make claim or seek by virtue of supposed right. Discussion Questions: 1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not? - Yes, he made a convincing case for the importance of rights 2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim0-ight? - Claim right is something that you have to argue as part of your rights.

Some of the answers are taken in this source. Source: From Joel Feinberg, “The Nature and Value of Rights,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 4 (1970) – 243 – 57, 1970, Martinus Nyhoff Publishers Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously 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? -

According to him people have the right to do something, and then it is wrong to interfere with them. The notion of rights rests on the idea of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community, including the idea of political equality.

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. -

Legal rights are relating to the constitutional laws, while moral laws these are also known as natural laws, rights which are not contingent upon the constitutional laws, and it is a law of behavior underpinning the morality of a civilization. Examples of legal rights, “no trespassing” it is the right of the owner to tell people not to enter without his/her authorization, & law of contracts. For moral laws, do not lie, and honor your father and your mother, these are just some of the moral laws.

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, it is the metaphor of balancing the public interest against personal

claims is established in our political and judicial rhetoric. The second model is more familiar idea of political equality. It is the freedom of decision whatever the effect to the general good, and all men must have the same of freedom. I think he attracts to the second model. 4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights? - First, the government might show that the values protected by the original right not

really at stake in the marginal case. Second, it shows that if the right is defined to include the marginal case.

Discussion Questions: 1. Does a person have aright to break the law? Why or why not? - No, because we all know those laws should not be broken by anyone, or else

consequences will follow. 2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism? -

No.

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

- He would accept rights in the strong sense.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press). Pp. 184-05. Copyright 1977, 1978, 1985 by Ronald Dworkin.

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice Review Questions: 1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.

-

We have our original position, stating that all of us must have equal rights

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

-

. Basically, the first principle of justice it is related to equal basic liberties.

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

In the second principle, it is concern to the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. The first principle has more priority over the other principle.

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? -

People don’t have the right to engage in homosexual, because there are moral laws that should be followed, although we can not call it as liberty if there are laws to be followed, but why I am trying to say is that before we came here in this world, that law is already there.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Theory of Justice by John Rawls (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). pp. 11-16 , 60 -65. Copyright 1971 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Annette C. Baier: The Need for More than Justice Review Questions: 1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop?

- According to the reading material, justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory. For care perspective it is a felt concern for the good of others and for community with them. 2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this theory? - Moral development aims satisfying community with others, and the other is aiming of equality of power. 3. Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are these differences? - the virtue justice, construed as respect for equal rights to formal goods such as

having contracts kept, due process, equal opportunity, to basic liberties of speech, free association and assembly, religious worship is that none of these goods do much to ensure that the people who have and mutuall respect such rights will have any other relationships to one another than the minimal relationship needed to keep such a civil society going. 4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions? - He attack the Kantian view because the challenge to the individualism of the

western tradition to the fairly emended belief in the possibility and desirability of each person pursuing his own good in his own way, constrained only by a minimal formal common good, namely working legal apparatus that enforces contracts and protects individuals from undue interference by others.

Discussion Questions: 1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue 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? - Nothing to be replaced and nothing also to be abandoned in terms of the values. 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? - For me there is nothing wrong with his views 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?

- It is very important to have freedom of choice, but there are some cases that we don’t have a choice.

Some of the answers are taken in this source.

Source: Annette C. Baier, “The Need for more than Justice,” from Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Vol. 13, 1988, published by University of Calgary Press.