Complete

Contemporary Moral Problem Book Review ITETHIC John Paulo Cantancio 3/2/2009 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Philippines License.

EGOISM

AND MORAL SKEPTICISM James Rachel

Quote: “No one, it is commonly believed, would have such iron strength of mind as to stand fast in doing right or keep his hands off other men’s goods, when he could go to the market-place and fearlessly help himself to anything he wanted, enter houses and sleep with any woman he chose, set prisoners free and kill men at his pleasure, and in a word go about among men with the power of a god. He would behave no better than the other; both would take the same course.” Review: James Rachele is a university professor of philosophy at the university of Alabama at Birmingham. Rachele examines psychological egoism and ethical egoism, two popular views used to attack conventional morality. Psychological egoism holds that all human actions are self-interest, whereas ethical egoism says that all actions ought to be self-interest. The legend of Gyges is one good example of egoism. In the real world, I would do the same if ever I have the same powers as Gyges. But maybe I would not last that long, because I was raised well by my parents and still have conscience in me.I have learned the difference between ethical and psychological egoism. I also learn about the different points of view of the author on how he viewed the situation. I also learned the basic human nature of selfishness and greed. But it is not always about selfishness. There are just times that people seem to think that way, maybe for some reasons we really can’t understand. I also learned that egoist are rare in our society not all of us are like them. We as human being, often think about others 1st before our self, or in some instance we think first of our self but think about others next. But it is normal because we are given the freedom to choose what we want to do. But still there are limit on what we must argue. If the egoist really doesn’t care about others, then he just reach the limit. We as humans must also act accordingly to the actions of an individual. Integrative Question:

1. What are the 2 kinds of egoism? 2. Who is the author of this chapter? 3.

What did the Gyges do?

4.

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

5. Are you an egoist? Review Questions: 1.

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

In the legend of Gyges a man is given the power to cloak. So the question is if you that man will you do the same? Or if not what will you do? For me I believe in a saying that “great power comes great responsibility” even if you have this kind of power this doesn’t make you God. You still have the moral responsibility of helping others. You should not only think about your self. Remember that in the end all of us will be judged the same(in a Christian perspective) 2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is being selfish and only thinks of himself. He basically doesn’t think before he acts and often thinks of himself as a unstoppable person. While the ethical is some how for me is more less brutal because in some way he thinks why will he do this or that? he somehow reasons out before he acts

3.

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

1st argument : One is selfish and the other is unselfish. how can you differentiate the 2? if for example helping his friend rather than going to the country? he chooses to stay because that’s what he wanted to do. will you call him unselfish if he did what he wanted to do? there are so many points of view in this statement. one thing is what do he really wants to

do? is he oblige by the fact that he must help his friend despite the want to go out of the country? in this case it is precisely called unselfishness. Because he thinks of his friend 1st rather than what he really wants to do. b.

2nd argument : Since so called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness rather than to bring about any good for others. there for the action "unselfish" is only at a superficial level of analysis. this only shows that all of us are selfish in ways that we want to achieve that state of satisfaction. Like what mr.Lincon did. He help the pig in order to get that state where in he don’t need to think of that pig for the whole day and he did it for himself.

4.

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

1st confusion is selfishness with self interest - in this confusion it is stated that doing something in your own interest. example is going to the doctor when you feel bad or brushing your teeth. both are showing self interest and involves behavior that ignores others.

b.

2nd confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. - in this confusion one good example is if the person knows the connection of smoking and cancer why don’t he stop smoking? if he is selfish he must think of himself there for he must stop smoking. But why don’t he stop?

c.

3rdconfusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. – in this confusion we often made assumption that being selfish is different from being unselfish because they are 2 different things. This is for me is wrong because even the most selfish human will never know when he will show unselfishness. It is inevitable.

5.

State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t rachels accepts this arguments? a.

Being ethical is some how different because there are so many factors affecting your decision and after you did it there will be some question about it for example why? Or for whom? And other things. These arguments will be more complicated if Rachels accepts it.

6.

According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? a. It is our moral obligation to not hurt other also we should help others. For us it is an obligation given to us by God and there for must be done. While in the egoistic point of view it seems that there is no limitation on their obligation.

Discussion Questions 1.

Has Rachels answer the question raised by Glaucon, namely “why be moral?” if so what exactly is his answer? a.

For me he already answered the question when he said that “why should I set fire to this department store?”.” because if you do many people will die and get hurt” that is one answer.

2.

Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know? a.

I think it is rare. Most of the people now a days even those what so called selfish people don’t think of them self most of the time. There will come a time that, that person will not just think of himself anymore.

3.

Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefits of the others and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not? a.

I think its immoral because how can you help others if you cant help your self. That’s one saying that tells us to start with our selves.

Religion, Morality and Conscience By: John Arthur Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done than that God cannot do them”-Thomas Aquinas Review: This chapter was written by John Arthur He talks about the Religion, Morality and Conscience. What do we know about morality? Does morality needs religion? Or it is just a social? In this chapter John Arthur discusses, and rejects, three ways morality has been thought to depend on religion: that without the motivation or religion people could not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide us guidance and teaches us what really is the right and wrong. Do we really need religion in order for us to learn what is right? I have read about the different points of view and arguments that commence in this essay and for me I think it is not. I come to think of it, why do people need religion any way? People needs to have some motivation I agree which they find in religion. These are just some of my comments that I formulated while I was reading thing essay. I have learned a lot about that’s the difference of religion, morality and conscience. That morality is everywhere. There are also some arguments that talks about morality as a social. It also teaches us that morality plays a big role in our society, that without it there would be chaos all around us. Morality is what binds us all, it is also the reason why we help others, putting our self in their position and thinking first before we act. Religion, morality and conscience are 3 words that makes us human beings. Integrative Question: 1. Do people need religion? 2. Why do people think morality as social?

3.

What Is morality?

4. What is conscience? 5. Why do we need to be moral? Review Questions: 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? a. Morality is built unto us since then yet some time we don’t show it most of the time. So we need religion in order for us to get motivated and improve our selves. 2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation? a.

It really depends on that person if he needs motivation or not. For example if he know that if kills it will be taken against him. If he can motivate himself to do good why need religion?

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

Different religion had different belief yet they the common thing is they believe that there is a higher being in which they believe in, that’s why they do things or act according on what they believe. If you believe that there is someone that is more superior than you, and believe in that concept you can teach yourself what to do.

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

In the divine command theory it is stated that God is the foundation of morality that with out him there will be no morality. Arthur doesn’t believe in this because he believes that morality is somehow human nature.

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

a.

He believes that morality and religion somehow are connected because they teach people what is right and wrong and it enables the person to enhance those morality with the teaching of religion.

6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? a. Arthur said that being moral needs conscience because we need to put ourselves into the shoes of others. Before we act think first what that person will feel and decide if you must do it or not. Discussion Questions: 1.

Divine command theory had been there ever since. People need someone to believe in for them to do good. They also believe in the concept of when you give or do good it would be given back ten folds. Having these commandment makes us a better persons.

2. As human we have our duties to non-human because without them there will be no humans. Even if they are not like us we still need to think of them as human. 3.

Ethics is about doing the right thing. Education pupils with moral ethics is a must in order for us to be more human and become less barbaric.

Utilitarianism By: John Stuart Mill Amazon.com:

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

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

Quote: “The ingredient of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself” – John Stuart Mill Review: John Stuart Mill is one of the most respected British philosopher. In this chapter he explains to us the what is the meaning of utilitarianism and the principle of utility. Where in he said that life has no higher end than pleasure. He also explains that Utility or happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. Which means we do things because that’s what make us happy. As what Jesus of Nazareth told us “Love your neighbor as you love your self” in Mills point of view this is a good example of perfection of utilitarian morality. This points out that the happiness of an individual must be in harmony with the interest of others. He also points out that if a person wants something there are 2 ways that he could end up, he could be happy by mere possession of it, or unhappy by failure to achieve it. These philosophies can help us along as we grow up on what ever decisions we make in our daily lives. Remember that we have our own decision to make and these are just guide philosophies. Integrative Question: 1. What is happiness? 2. Why be unhappy if you could be happy? 3. What are the 2 kinds of pleasure? 4. What is the pleasure? 5. Who is the writer of utilitarianism? Review Questions: 1. State and explain the principle of Utility? Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing. a. The principle of utility is based on the happiness of the majority. For example what will the majority thinks about stealing or lying? If the majority thinks that these two are wrong then it would be wrong.

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

He said that the highest point in a human perspective is pleasure. Then they must have done anything that would only pleasure them. That all of the things that pleasure them is right.

3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? a. Higher pleasure means that if ever you play a game that is more complex than the other then you will have a higher quality of pleasure. While in the other hand lower pleasure is like playing checkered than chess because chess is more demanding than checkers but they both have pleasure in playing it. 4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? a. Mill believed that for some persons "the need of excitement is a disease." Rather, true human happiness consists in a give and take involving both excitement and tranquility, both pleasure and pain.

5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility. a. Mill states that people love virtue only because it constitutes a part of happiness. Mill argues that happiness is not an abstract idea, but a whole with component parts. Because virtue is a part of happiness, and promotes

the

general

development of virtue. Discussion:

happiness,

utilitarianism

encourages

the

1. For me happiness is both pain and pleasure. Because for me how can you know that you are happy if you haven’t felt the pain. Absence of pain is inevitable because there will come a time that one will suffer pain in his life time. 2. For me I think Mill is right about the higher pleasure. In some ways people have the nature of excitement that they feel more pleasure if there is more complexity in it.

3.

For me its not. People got their own perspective and its not right to say what they must do. Lets just let them decide what they really want.

4.

For me I think its effective. Come to think of it, why do we work hard all day? Why do we need to work anyway? For me we need to work hard in order for us to buy those things that we need, to eat foods that we want and other things that pleasures us. People move because they want pleasure and happiness in their lives, so this is why I think it is effective.

Trying Our Ones New Sword By: Mary Midgley Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them” – Mary Midgley Review: In this chapter we will see how Mary Midgley explains the theory of “moral isolationism”. This explains the different morals of different cultures. She said the “we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand”. How can you really explain what is immoral? If what is immoral to you is moral to them? These are just some of the questions that you will develop along the reading of this chapter.

Another argument is that how can we judge them if we can’t understand their culture. That is why we need to know them first before we make opinions or judgments to their culture or heritage. It is better if we just have to make good opinions so that they can be motivated and be proud of their culture and heritage. She also points out the ancient Japanese culture of trying out one’s new sword. As what the title of this chapter is, she explains that a new katana must first be used in a human to try if it will work well, so that if used in battle they won’t fail their ancestor and the emperor. This is just one good example that Midgley explains that we cannot judge other cultures morality. Integrative Question: 1. What is a katana? 2.

What culture uses tsujigiri?

3.

Why cant we judge other culture?

4.

Do different culture have different morality?

5. What do we call that barrier or cultures?

Review Questions: 6. What is “moral isolationism”? a.

It is forbidding us to interfere with other culture rather than where you came from because you don’t know them and how can u criticize them if your not one of them. He also said that it also forbids us to take critical position to any other culture.

7.

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

Tsujigiri is a Japanese custom where in before using a new samurai one must 1st try it, because you must make sure that it is working properly well because if not it may injure your reputation. For us we really don’t understand these kind of things so we better not criticize it because we are not Japanese.

8.

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

There are some questions about isolationism one is, if we live with them for a short period of time? Are we credible to judge them? Criticize them? Or it will take more than that to be able to do such thing?.

9.

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

As Midgley said there is no close box. This only means that through out history different culture criticize each other and learn from them. Comparing their culture and others and try to adapt other things.

Discussion Question: 1.

For me Midgley have no right to judge one persons work because she doesn’t know the culture for which that person grew. Each has its own opinions, but if ever you will make opinion on others work its better if it would be positive so that there will be no conflicts.

2.

For me it is unreal. This may be applicable before during the time of ancient Japan. But now a days there has been what we so called globalization. Other culture mixed with other culture and there for have the right to make an opinion on both sides. Other is there has been some standards that had been set for us to follow, that’s why it would be unreal not to criticize other culture.

The Need For More Than Justice By: Annette Baier Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “The best moral theory is the one that best harmonizes justice and care” Review: In this chapter Baier criticize the works of Rawls, Kant and Gilligan. She stated that justice alone is not morally correct. She also stated that care alone is not evident specially when it is just an option. She thinks that justice and care must be together in order to formulate the right theory. She said that care being an option is not enough. She also explains the importance of relationships specially child-parent relationship where in justice is set aside and emotions arise. Integrative Question: 1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop? a.

Baier thinks that care and justice must be united. She thinks that justice is inadequate as a moral theory as what is stated by Kant and Rawls. Also the care perspective of Gilligan. She thinks that they overlooked the inequalities between peoples relationship and set aside some emotions such as love. Baier thinks that the best moral theory is the one that harmonize justice and care.

2.

Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticism do Giligan and Baier make of this theory? a.

There are 3 stages according to Kohlberg. The first one is the preconventional, which you try to please others. The second one is the conventional where in you are already knowing the rules and standards and try to follow them. The last one is the post-conventional where in they

tend to challenge or test the rules and standards they follow. Baier criticize the Gilligan for putting the care as an option and not set as the minimum. 3.

Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are these differences? a. The difference are the relative weight put on relationships between equals, the relative weight put on freedom of choice, and on the authority of intellect over emotions.

4.

Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions? a. There are some instances that love overcomes reason like in parenthood. Can a parent be just? If for example his son did something wrong and must be punished. As a father it will be just fine because he is your son and you love him.

Discussion: 1.

It simply means to use the concept of patriarchals to defend the marginalized people. New values replace the old ones but it does not necessarily mean that we are to abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and rights

2. The thing that is wrong with the Kantian view is that it considers women and minorities as ineligible to draft legislations and to vote. 3. Freedom of choice is very important because it is the essence of being a human, having free will and to be able to decide for our own being.

The Debate Over Utilitarianism By: James Rachelle Amazon.com:

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

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

Quote: “the woman who worked harder has a superior claim to the promotion, not because it promotes the general welfare for her to get it but because she has earned it” – James Rachelle Review: In this chapter James Rachelle shows us the debate of the anti utilitarianism and the utilitarianism. We will also see how each side defend its own believes and how they explain their points of views. Rachelle believes in utilitarianism but he thinks that it needs modifications. So many philosophers argue with this kind of philosophy some even want this philosophy to be erased. Also in this chapter we will know the difference between hedonism and utilitarianism. How can we apply it in present situation and how your action is affected by it. There are also some arguments that makes utilitarianism very vulnerable in some situation testing if there philosophy is really the right thing to do. Rachels also explains the addition of merits to utilitarian. That hard work should have corresponding merits. There are so much in this chapter that you will know about the pros and cons of each arguments. Every arguments have special corresponding answers and conclusion. Integrative Question: 1. What is justice? 2.

What is rights?

3. Are promises an obligation? 4. How can you weight in a situation? 5.

What is merits?

Review Questions: 1.

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

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

b.

2nd, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused

c.

3rd, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

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

Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake .Right actions, it says are the ones that produce the most good. But what is good? The classical utilitarian reply is; one thing, and one thing only, namely happiness.

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

Justice – what if lying is the right thing to do?(in a utilitarian point of view)will you do it?

b.

Rights – What if you violate ones rights?(in a utilitarian point of view the majority is right and in this case their had been only one unhappy person and 2 happy person. So is this the right thing to do?)

c.

Promises – what if you promised your friend to meet in a particular place at a particular time, but you still have work to do. What will you do? In a utilitarian point of view what if doing the work will make him more happy? Will you still meet him or not?

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

a. For rule utilitarianism, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarianism

judge

actions

in

terms

of

the

goodness

of

their

consequences without reference to rules of action. 5. What is the third line of defense? a. A small group of contemporary utilitarian has had a very different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments point out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on; to this, their response is essentially “so what”

Discussion Questions: 1.

For me it in no because moral beliefs as an individual had a root, and there are many reasons why we believe such thing. Every individual has its own view point of utilitarianism and he also got his own point. We should respect what ever moral belief every have.

2.

1st of all we must consider non-human animals. We have been given this gift to think and to care about others not only us human but also those non-human. We have duties that we must consider in order to live.

3. Yes I do. I believe that merits must be given consideration because it tend to sum up the hard work that an individual has done and it must be given consideration.

The categorical imperative By: Immanuel Kant Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Review: Immanuel Kant is a German philosophers and one of the most important philosopher of all time. Kant believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule, which is the categorical imperative, from which all our duties can be derived. In this chapter Kant talks about “The good will” and “Duty”. The good will is doing something even if there is nothing in return. While the duty is doing something that must be done because it is a must. You will also learn different points of view and different versions of categorical imperative. What are its advantage and disadvantages and why must we follow that kind of setting. You also learn the meaning of self love which leads to some arguments about it. Different scenarios will also show you how people seem to look at that perspective and see what is the law of nature is all about. Integrative Question: 1. What is categorical imperative? 2. What is Duty? 3. Is good will the same as duty? 4. What is the difference of Duty and Good Will? 5. What is Self Love? Review Questions: 1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will a. Good will is to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification. It is also considered to be the

only rule but many versions. They also constitute to the inner worth of the person. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. a. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance: if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself 3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others. a. Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person making the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must have universality, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative, explain it. a.

Kant derives the second version from the first one. He concluded that every rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general.

Discussion Questions: 1.

For me they are both different because the 1st imperative talks only about self love. While the second imperative, talks about self love but with additional questions like “is it right?”. For me the second is better because it adds

conscience in it, where you do it or not the most important thing is you come to think what is really the right thing. 2.

I really don’t agree because what if your self interest is for others and you don’t have duties for them then it is not moral. Duties are like laws we must do because it is our obligation. It is not right to say that when you do something that have nothing to do with the motive of duty then it will have no moral worth.

3. For me I think it is a good criticism, because Kant did not explain well the limitations of self love. Every person believes in different thing, what if you found out that you are sick and have no possibility that you will survive so for the sake of self-love then you will commit suicide. This is something that is not right. So I think it is a good criticism.

Taking Rights Seriously By: Ronald Dworkin Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “if a person have the rights to do something and it is wrong to interfere with them” Review: In this chapter Ronald Dworkin talks about the rights of a person but in a strong sense, which means it is “ a must”. We will also learn about the rights of a person and laws of the government. On how to exercise these rights and how can there be harmony between the rights of a person and the law of the government. Dworkin also talks about the two kinds of rights. One is the moral rights where in it is about the conscience and religious beliefs. The other one is about the legal rights that are made by the law makers the a person must follow. Dworkin also talks about the two forms of government and what are their advantage and disadvantages. There are also some good examples of rights like the rights of freedom of speech, where in there are some arguments whether the government have the right to stop it or not. Integrative Question: 1. What is Freedom of speech? 2. What is a government? 3.

What is moral rights?

4.

What is legal rights?

5. Who make the law? Review Questions: 1.

What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in the sense are protected by the U.S Constitution?

a.

The government don’t have the right to interfere against the right of the other. For example the government don’t have the right to interfere against someone who is talking because there is what is so called freedom of speech except if it is against another rights.

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

Legal rights are those rights that are written in the constitution and there for we must follow it. While the moral rights are our rights thatare not written. For example honor your mother and your father. This is for us Christians is a moral rights but there is no law regarding that you must honor your mother and you father Another example is trespassing. There is a law which tells us that trespassing is a crime. But in morality there is no such thing as trespassing.

3.

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

The model talks about the balance between public interest and personal interest. Which for Dworkin opinion is false. While the second model talks about the political equality. Which talks about every person even if he is weak must have the same respect and concern like those powerful members.

4.

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

a. The first one is about the individual rights on the person. Where in it tells us that each of us is as important as the other person because each of us have the same rights. Another one is the majority rights, where in we must look at a bigger picture of the situation where in the majority must be followed. Discussion Questions: 1. Yes, a person can break the law if it is against his rights. One good example is during the time of EDSA people power. People are violating the law because they think that the law is violating their rights. 2. In some ways it is compatible because of the majority aspect of both utilitarianism and the rights. Both are based on the majority of the people. 3.

For me it is yes because according to Kant you must do the right thing and invoke some conscience in doing it. it like the rights of a person, if that particular person thinks that what he is doing is the right thing then he must do it.

Master and Slave Morality By: Friedrich Nietzsche Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one” – Friedrich Nietzsche Review: This chapter was written by Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900). He was a German philosopher and poet who is often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and deconstructionism. In this chapter the author is trying to defend about the Master and Slave morality where in the “Master” or the superior individual must exercise its “will to power”. This kind of mentality is present during the ancient days of kings and queens. During those times there are just 2 kinds of people, the master and those who are slaves. This kind of mentality is still present now a day but not as brutal as before. Now the masters that he talks about are those company owners or people that have the power. While I was reading this chapter I come to think of it. Why do we really need to be fair with one another if we got power or money? But why do people let themselves to be slaves? There are arguments distracting my mind while reading this essay. There had been so many conflicts. As I go along the paragraphs in the essay I learned the different views and opinions of the author and those arguments or why and why not? I also discover that being the master does not mean that you have to be arrogant to your slaves. Being a master comes the responsibilities and duties of morality. As what they always say, in every part of our society there must be morality.

Integrative Question: 1. What is will to power? 2.

Where do Friedrich Nietzsche live?

3. What are the 2 kinds of people according to Friedrich? 4.

What part of the society are the master?

5. What part of the society are the slaves? Review Questions: 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? a. He said that a good and healthy society must exercise the master morality for the rich and powerful and the slave morality for those who are weak and poor. 2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation? a. Nietzsche said that injury, violence and exploitation are the fundamental principle of society. He also said that these are standard of life and every one must learn how to deal with it. 3. Distinguish between master morality and slave morality. a.

He said that there are certain standard when dealing with “master morality” and also in “slave morality”. When you are a superior person you have to act as master there for learn to be more charismatic and learn how to handle those people under you. When you are a inferior person learn how to follow commands and be more down to earth.

4. Explain the will to power?

a. The will to power is that every specific body strives to become master of all but you will encounter other people with the same philosophy and unites to gain more power. Discussion Questions : 1. For me his philosophy is justified as Nazism. He thinks of will of power all of the time and for him he there are 2 kinds of people those who are superior and inferior. As Christians all of us must have the same rights provided by law so that all of the people can have a life 2. A creator of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid.

Happiness and Virtue By: Aristotle Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “” Review: Integrative Question:

1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? a. Happiness for Aristotle is somehow not for honor, pleasure or anything else but for the sake of itself. We are doing such things for the sake of our own happiness. Happiness and virtue makes no big difference. We make such things even if we know that it will make no good. Just for the “its sake”. Pleasure is somehow connected to happiness in the sense of satisfying our self. Conflicts occurs because sometimes it is just not by nature pleasant but as an adventure charm, 2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. a.

The moral virtue is a mean and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, and the other as a deficiency, and that is such because its characteristic is to aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. A person with the virtue of obedience. People seem to be obedience because they know that there will some consequence in a way of failure if they did not do it. It is up to them how will they accept the fact that they failed.

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

As my understanding, it is possible that all people is happy but if we will include the creatures or creation by God then I do not think so it is possible that all creatures will be happy. In the reading, it states that “by the fact that the other animals have no share in happiness, being completely deprived of such activity. I think those creatures by God that incapable of the virtuous activities are those who cannot be happy.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1 . A life of pleasure is irresistible yet many consequences. For example if you haven’t felt the pain and failure. how can you be able to get thru those kind of obstacles. We as human must feel not just pleasure but also failure. that’s why we are called human being because we have the power to think and to act accordingly to what is needed. 2. I don’t agree, they can’t say that they have more knowledge that they are happier than anyone else. Many people have different opinions about happiness and different ways how to become happy. Most philosophers view it that the more you know the happier you will be. For me it is not like, because for me happiness have different criteria and to be happy you must have those different criteria and there for you will be happy.

A Theory of Justice By: John Rawls Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all” Review: In this chapter John Rawls talks about justice and its 2 basic principle. Rawls bring up some arguments that need intellectual thinking and justification. The 1st one is about the equal liberties of all. This means that we must have the same rights and is just if we don’t interfere with the rights of others. Rawls made an example of freedom of speech, this right must be practice by all of us but there are some instances that before we practice we must 1st ask permission because we may be interfering with others. The 2nd principle is the inequality when it comes to politics and business. For me this is eminent in our society today. For example in the military there is what you call chain of command. Come to think of it how can we be equal if there are people above us? For me we need this in order to lead us in the right way, and it is also stated that this is valid if it is for our advantage. Integrative Question: 1. What for you is the meaning of justice? 2. What is the meaning of equal liberties? 3. Is freedom of speech part of our liberties? 4. If we are equal then why is there such thing as chain of command? 5. What will be our limitation in what you so called equal liberties? Review Questions: 1. Carefully explain Rawls’ conception of the origin position? a.

The origin of position as Rawl explains is the hypothetical condition wherein the citizens of in that world is under the veil of ignorance, they

have no idea of their skills, intellect, and social status. He used this origin of position to explain how justice as fairness could be achieved. 2. State and explain Rawls’ first principle of justice. a.

The 1st principle explains about the equal basic liberties. Which means equal in rights for example right to vote, freedom of speech and other things that ever person must have. The first principle also explains that fairness is a must in our society.

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

The 2nd principle explains about the arrangement of social and economical inequalities. Which means there are some instances that inequality is evident for example is the chain of command, authority etch. But Rawls’ explain that inequality is just if it is for the benefit of all. For example is the authority, if there are no authorities who will prevent you from doing wrong then I think it will be chaotic.

Discussion: 1.

On the first principle there are limitations and some of this are the rules imposed by our government and our religion. One good example is engaging in homosexual activities, in other countries that religion is not that important to them homosexual activities are just fine. There are even places where same sex marriage are not a violation. While for those using drugs, maybe you are using it in your very homes in some private places but if you will view it in a bigger picture it can affect the community in a big way. Such examples are those pregnant women that are addictive to drugs, they don’t think anymore the most important thing for them is to take some dosage. What if all of us are like that then there will be chaos.

The Nature and Value of Rights By: Joel Fienberg Amazon.com:

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1 Quote: “all duties are correlated with the rights of those to whom the duty is owed” Review: In this chapter Feinberg wants us to imagine a placed named Nowheresville where non of us has a right. There is no rights to violate because there is non. So Feinberg wants us to imagine a place where in there is no limit on what you can do to a particular person because there is nothing to stop you. Just imagine how inconvenience and violence that world can be. Feinberg wants us to learn the importance of rights to out daily lives and what are their limitations. He also wants us to reflect on the morality of some particular situations because along the way. Feinberg will add piece by piece some duties, rights and the presence of God. This is a good experiment because you can really reflect on the situation and ask your self. What if? Integrative Question: 1.

What is Nowheresville?

2.

What is rights?

3.

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

4. What are duties? 5. What is the difference of Duties and rights?

Review Questions: 1.

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

a. It is a place where in there are no rights. It is a world where in every one can’t justify themselves because they’ve got no right to lean on. It is an ugly place to live in. this is the complete opposite of our world. Without rights people seem to abuse their power and go over the moral obligation. 2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine? a.

This is the doctrine that all duties entail other peoples rights and all rights entail other peoples duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights, need concern us here. Feinberg tend to believe that in some sense yes and some no. He further explain that duty comes from the word due which means. That it simply tells us that we must do it. He told us that all duties are correlated with the rights of those to whom the duty is owed.

3.

How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? a. To deserve something good is for there to be “a certain propriety” in your receiving it, a propriety based either on the kind of person you are or on some specific thing that you’ve done. This sort of “propriety” is “a kind of fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s favorable response, much like that between humor and laughter, or good performance and applause.

4.

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

In order to escape the state of nature, men make a covenant among themselves to transfer their right of nature to a single entity who will thereby have the legitimate authority to enforce covenants. This will be

like dictatorship where in all the powers will be put upon one person only. The outcome will depends on how that person will lead them. 5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? a.

To have a right is to have a claim against someone whose recognition as valid is called for by some set of governing rules or moral principles. To have a claim in turn, is to have a case meriting consideration, that is, to have reasons or grounds that put one in a position to engage in formative and propositional claiming.

Discussion questions: 1. Yes because he made a realistic approach by making an imaginary world where in at first there are no rights and there for no justice. After he added different duties and different rights and see how the community will be. This is one good way of experimenting how people will act depending on what rights are there. 2. The activity of claiming, finally, as much as any other thing, makes for selfrespect and respect for others, and gives a sense to the notion of personal dignity

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

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

NATIONAL LIBRARY OR

AND

CLAIM STUB

USE CASE EXISTING

USE CASE NARRATIVE

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION SYSTEM USE CASE NARRATIVE ACCOMPLISH COPYRIGHT FORM Identification summary Title: Accomplish Copyright Form Summary: form

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

Actors:

Applicant, Copyright Staff

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

Person in Charge:

Flow of Events Preconditions: 1. The National Library should be open 2. The material that to be copyrighted is finished 3. There should be an applicant Main Success Scenario: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The applicant gets an application form from the Copyright office Then the applicant should fill-in the information on the form The applicant should purchase a stamp The affidavit should be notarized The applicant gives back the form to the Copyright office

Alternative Sequences: 1. The applicant already has a form 1. The applicant has already completed a form which is downloaded from the Library’s site 2. The applicant should proceed in purchasing a stamp Error Sequences: 1. The affidavit hasn’t been notarized a. The affidavit isn’t notarized because there is no notary public available b. Use case ends

2. There a. b. 3. There a. b.

is no stamp to be purchased There are no stamps available in the store Use case ends is no form to be given There are no forms to be given to the applicant Use case ends

PAY COPYRIGHT FEE Identification summary Title: Pay Copyright Fee Summary:

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

Actors:

Applicant, Copyright Staff, Cashier

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

Person in Charge:

Flow of Events Preconditions: 1. The cashier should be open 2. The copyright office is still open 3. The applicant should have a filled-up form Main Success Scenario: 1. The copyright staff signs the form and indicates the amount to be paid 2. The applicant pays the copyright fee to the cashier 3. The cashier issues a receipt to the applicant Alternative Sequences: 1. There are some fields needed to be filled-up 1. The applicant has left a blank field 2. The applicant fills up the blank and submits the form back to the copyright staff Error Sequences: 1. The cashier is closed a. The cashier closed before the applicant could pay the copyright fee b. Use case ends

FILE COPYRIGHT REQUEST

Identification summary Title: File Copyright Request Summary: office

This use case allows the applicant to file a copyright request to the copyright

Actors:

Applicant, Copyright Staff

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

Person in Charge:

Flow of Events Preconditions: 1. The material should have two copies 2. The applicant have paid the copyright fee 3. The form is verified by the copyright staff Main Success Scenario: 1. The applicant submits the form, material, and receipt to the copyright staff 2. The copyright staff files the form and material to be copyrighted 3. The copyright staff returns the receipt with a claim stub to the applicant Alternative Sequences: 1. The applicant has only one copy of the material 1. The applicant has one copy of the material 2. The applicant should provide one more copy of the material Error Sequences: 1. The copyright office is already closed a. The copyright office is already closed when the applicant returned b. Use case ends

ASK COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Identification summary Title: Ask Copyright Information Summary: staff Actors:

This use case allows the applicant to ask for information from the copyright Applicant, Copyright Staff

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

Person in Charge:

Flow of Events Preconditions: 1. The copyright staff should be present 2. The national library should be open Main Success Scenario: 1. The applicant asks a question to the copyright staff 2. The staff answers the applicant Alternative Sequences: 1. The applicant has another question 1. The applicant asks another question to the copyright staff 2. The staff answers the applicant Error Sequences: 1. The copyright staff is not present a. The applicant goes in the copyright office and the copyright staff is not present b. Use Case ends

ACTIVITY DIAGRAM EXISTING: Accomplish Copyright Form

Pay Copyright Fee:

File Copyright Request:

Ask Copyright Information:

PROPOSED USED CASE DIAGRAM