Contemporary Moral Problems

The Copyright notice shall be in the form Philippine Copyright 2009 by Jann Michael V. Babiera

i

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

Jann Michael V. Babiera All rights reserved 2009

ii

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

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

Table of Contents

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism…………………………………………. 5 John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience ……………………………………... 7 Friedrick Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality ………………………………………..9 Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword …………………………………………. 11 John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism ………………………………………………………. 13 James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism………………………………………15 Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative ………………………………………….17 Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue ………………………………………………………. 18 Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights ……………………………………… 21 Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously …………………………………………… 22 John Rawls: A Theory of Justice ……………………………………………………… 24 Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice……………………………………… 26

Use Case………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Activity Diagram(Exisiting)………………………………………………………………29 Activity Diagram(Proposed)………………………………………………………………30 Use Case Narrative………………………………………………………………………….31 Scaned Receipt………………………………………………………………………………32

iv

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To gain insights about this topic and to know more about ethical egoism and moral skepticism To be able to understand what is the different sides of the arguments To understand why humans do things good to himself or to others Quote: “Why, bless your soul, Ed that was the very essence of selfishness. I have no peace of mind all day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see” – Abraham Lincoln Book review: Basically this chapter is dedicated to the topic about Egoism and Moral Scepticism. On the first part of the topic tells that our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions. We think what is good is that we do not harm others. We refrain from doing “bad” things because it makes our mind peaceful. But there are things that you will do that will harm the few and will help the many. The Legend of Gyges was discussed. It ‘s about the shepherd who was said to be found a magic ring and by having that ring he uses it for his own self interest. Glaucon asks us to determine that there are two ring which is given to a man of virtue and a rogue. Being a rogue, You will take advantage of what you have. You will use your power to survive and take advantage of what you have. But Glaucon also consider that the man of virtue will do so because he thinks that we humans done have an iron strength of mind as to stand fast in doing right. For me agree on him. If you have the advantage or the power to do the impossible would you ever think for others besides yourself? Psychological and ethical egoism is discussed. This makes sense because we humans have choices on doing things whether it looks like we helped others first or mainly we just want to do things that we ought to act. Because it’s about you will act. Psychological egoism tells that all men are selfish in everything that they do. There is also an argument that tells about the fact motivated by self-interest. These arguments tell about what we really want to do. For the benefit of the other first or the benefit you will going to attain first. There are many reasons why we do things. In many case we think that we do it just because we want to be good in the eyes of others but if we view it as the man who help he want to help because he want to do things good for himself. Just to have a peace of mind like what Abraham Lincoln said. Integrative Questions: 1. Who is James Rachel? 2. Are humans selfish? If you think so, why? 3. What is the first commonplace confusion of? Explain why this happens. Sight some examples. 4. What is the second confusion? Explain why this happens and sight some examples 5. What is the third confusion? Explain why this happens and sight some examples

What I have learned

v

I learned many things about what you are suppose to do in any situations. What are the things that will prevent you from doing that and the things that will oblige you to do such things. I also distinguish physiological egoism and ethical egoism. Review Questions: Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality raised by the story? The Legend tells that a shepherd found a magic ring when there is an earthquake. The man uses this ring to gain entry to the palace and do what he likes. He even seduced the queen, murdered the king and seized the throne. It’s about how you will act when you have the advantage to do what you like. There are to choices do what is in your mind or do something that will benefit for others Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish and its only motive which everyone acts is for self-interest. While Ethical egoism is a normative view about how men ought to act, regardless how men behave, they have no obligations to do anything except what is in their interest. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? First argument is that people do things because of others but apart from that view is that the people that is so called unselfish still do what he wants to do. Some people do things because of consequences that they are obliged to do. In that case we feel that we are under obligations or you have promised it to do so. The second argument is that when we do something good or beneficiary to others we are doing some self-satisfaction instead to doing well to others. As Abraham Lincoln said that if he passes through a pig that is drowning and never helped it. He might be thinking of that incident all day long. He did it because he wants to have a peace of mind. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? The first is the confusion of selfishness with self-interest. Second, confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other regarding motives. Third, confusion is common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachel accept this argument? He would be saying to Peter, “You ought to pursue your own interest even if it means destroying Paul”; and he would be saying to Paul, “You ought to pursue your interest even if it means destroying Peter.” The ethical egoist would say at this point, “Of course it is possible for the people to act altruistically, and perhaps many people do act that way. Rachel doesn’t accept this argument because he thick that what we do came from our own different reasons as a human. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? The egoist would rather defend themselves by saying that we humans only needs to protect ourselves even if we hurt others. We only want self satisfaction rather than helping others. Discussion Questions: Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, why be moral?”If so, what exactly is his answer? Rachels answered it by explaining the psychological egoism and Ethical Egoism. It’s about the “ought to act”. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it in fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know? For me, being a genuine egoist depends on the situations that he will be going to act. Most people care for other people because of the “Family”. People do bad things because they want to secure their families not by doing it for there own selves 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?

vi

For me, it is better to think for the others first rather than thinking first about the things that will be beneficiary to you and because if we think first about our own self might have conflict about the result because you might hurt someone in the future. th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To know what is the relationship of ethics in religion, morality and conscience To understand what will be the role of religion to us humans of followers To understand if religion has a big impact towards morality and how morality develops Quote: “Without religious motivation people could not be expected to do the right things; that religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of actions; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right and wrong.” – John Arthur Book review: John Arthur will also discuss about the notion of moral conscience and various aspects in which morality is social and the implication of ideas about moral education. This topic is mainly about morality and religion that tells us that what will happen if the society exist without a social moral code. For me, as a Catholic this only tells us that our foundation of being a good human not only in the eyes of God but also with our fellow human beings. Moral education also leads us to morality but the interesting question is that if we are trained to do harm to others is it considered good in the society that we belong? There are many aspects that we consider good things that are bad. In many movies that I’ve watch there are cases that you surrender very important things in their lives in exchange for their love ones. They disobey the law in order for them to save lives. Which is good of course but to disobey the laws may have a great consequences. Religion teaches us to be good. Respect others as we respect our selves. Is their a Christian nation now? Even we have our religion but if we don’t act as a part of that religion that is not makes you a good follower. This is the essence of being a good follower. What is taught to us must be followed. Christians are different with Muslims. What are right for them might be wrong for Christians and what is wrong for Christians might be right for other religion. It creates issues because of our leaders that taught us. What will happen if we think that the teachings of our leaders are bad but we consider it good because the society does it everyday? It makes sense because we only follow and we don’t even care about the social implications that will affect the society. John argued that religion is not necessary is not necessary in moral motivation because for him and not to subscribe to the divine command theory that god is necessary for there to be morality. He depend his side on that because he thinks that we human are capable of creating our own actions and can think on our own way. He tells us that we already know what is good from the very start. What will be our reactions be if God tells that the good things that we do are actually bad? Social Morality for me is the ways that we do that we only do things because we involve in that society. We build ourselves in moral actions that we do. 5 Book review Questions: 1. What is Morality? 2. Do religion makes us good people? 3. What is the Devine Command Theory? 4. Explain what is “Morality Is Social”? 5. What is Moral Education and does it help us to be a good human being?

vii

What I have learned I learned many things on this topic. It clears my mind on different argument on this topic. Being good is not only taught but it is a self learning. Religions are somehow makes us have a clear view on what to do they guide us to do things that is right not only for them but for all the people also. Review Questions: According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different? Morality is all about the norms, the way we should act accordingly. It is about right and wrong and the consequences if we do it while religion is a religious beliefs in God. It is how you are motivating do do good when believing in God. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation? It isn’t necessary for moral motivations because as a human we have the power to do what we want to do. No one can stop us from hurting someone. We control own selves. We thinks what we know what is good for us even we hurt somebody even if you have religion or not. Still you can do what you like. But the advantage of having a religion is that you are taught to do well and balance what we are doing. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Having the most popular religion in the world doesn’t makes us the goodies among them all. We are individual who only do things that are good for us and sometimes for the others. It is not necessary for the religion to become a source of moral knowledge because parents are still the one who build us to become good and also the environment that we grew up. Religion, basically, teaches us what is right and wrong. I think religion is not necessary as a source of moral knowledge because there are many religions in the world. What is right for the Catholics may not be right for the Muslims. It became unnecessary because we all have different beliefs. Moral knowledge comes from within. What is divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? Divine theory tells that if there is no God there could be no right or wrong. Arthurs reject this theory because if God tells or commands us to do what is right and the same time that our deeds are wrong. What will happen? If God will command us not to do to them, their actions would not be wrong. Certainly the expression “is commanded by God” and is “morally required “do not mean the same thing. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? Somehow connected because having a religion pushes you to become good in which they believed in. And in morality, you are pushing your own self to become good in the way the people think is good. The difference is that the root of doing good things and by following it. Dewey says that morality is social, what does this mean according to Arthur? Morality influenced religion and religion also influenced morality. They shaped each other. Arthur tells that the existence of morality assumes that we posses a socially required language within which we think about our choices and which alternatives we ought to follow. Morality is social in

viii

that it governs relationships among people, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Morality provides the standards we rely on in gauging with family, lovers, friends, fellow citizens and even strangers. Morality is social in the sense that we are, in fact, subject to criticisms by others of our actions. We discuss with others what we do, and often hear them concerning whether our decisions were acceptable and our ideas depends on appreciating the fact that to think from the moral view point. Discussion Questions: Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? Arthur somehow contradicts on the Divine Command Theory because still he believes that it is still connected to morality. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to non human? Still we have obligations to non-humans because as religion shaped morality it is still our responsibility to take care of other things even if we don’t own them. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education? Moral education is about the teachings about morality that will influence our daily lives. It is how we mold ourselves to do morally right and the consequences of each action that we do. This class (IT-ETHIC) will be considered as a moral education because the teaching of Mr. Pajo tells us about morality and helps us to think on what actions that we will be going to do.

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Friedrich Nietzsche: Master-Slave-Morality Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To gain more ideas and to know the difference of master-slave-morality Quote: “A healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their “will to power,” their drive towards domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a “mastermorality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as distinguish from a “slavemorality” that calls for weakness, submission, a sympathy, and love.” - Friedrich Nietzsche Book review: Friedrich Nietzsche is a German philosopher and poet and often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and deconstruction. Every human are born to have desire and goals. Some are born to be wild in the sense that they are contented on their life with their tribes and not explore new things. Some the origin of their family is the root of the root of their desire or power. When they are rich they just follow the usual way how the rich and the wealthy people do. While for the poor ones have nothing to do with their lives. The slave-master morality exists. They will have a hard time to build or grow their lives for the better. Like the barbarians in the topic, the author said it was natural because they

ix

are born to be strong, because they are the man of prey and unbroken strength of power and desire and because of their physical power they where more complete men or complete beasts. I just happened that the society they lived in and developed to be a barbarian. They are taught and raised to be one of them. Corruption is one of the topics in this chapter. Every man is corrupt sometime. We use our power to become more powerful and do what we want because we are on top. We do everything just to say that we are the best and by that competitions are well known. If you are on top you the great possibility to abuse your power. You use other people to manipulate things and hide it from the people that you handle. We don’t know how many centuries corruption started. Even in the Bible there is corruption. Can we stop this or it is purely natural to us humans? Creator of values is a manner by which you do things that is good because you are not ought to do such a thing but you do something that is helpful both to himself and to the people. By the use of this power, he exercises the power to will in which morality is a self glorification. 5 Book review Questions: 1. What is a “creator of values”? 2. What is a “master-morality”? 3. What is a “slave-morality”? 4. What you mean about “will to power”? 5. Define what pathos of distance? What I have learned I’ve learned many things about master-morality and slave-morality. How it differs and why we belong to this situation or society. This made a great impact to me because as a human by nature I have the power to do things when I have the power and let me realize not to abuse my power for my own self interest because it will create a negative impact not only to the society but also for my own self. Review Questions How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? He characterize a good and healthy should allow superior individuals to exercise their “will to power,” their drive towards domination and exploitation of the inferior. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation? It is about Master-morality. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality. Master morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, while Slave morality is about weakness, submission, sympathy and love. Explain the Will to Power. It is how we act or motivate ourselves. For example, we do things that we want to do even by not thinking if it is morally right or wrong. It is because we exist. Discussion Questions

x

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? Nietzsche writings for me are not harmful because as a writer we have our own ideas about things that are happening. He only expresses what he thinks. For me the charges may be justifiable because as a writer you have your own side and if someone reads on your writing everybody has their own opinion whether it is good or bad. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”? The quote says that “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself”; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on things; he is a creator of values. He honors what he recognizes in himself: such morality is self glorification

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Mary Midgley: Trying Out one’s New Sword Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To be able to understand what is the point of view of the author To understand how the topic will help me change my view towards other culture To know more about moral isolation Quote: “Moral Isolation is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because forbids any moral reasoning” – Mary Midgley Book review: Mary Midgley is retired philosophy teacher at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England. She is the author of many books where this topic is taken. She attacks moral isolation, by which many anthropologist said that we cannot attack other cultures if we don’t know what are their cultures really are. In this statement I can say that it is right not to criticize any of other culture because as a person who doesn’t know the root of their culture and why they do such things that looks immoral for us. In their point of view it is right to exercise their own cultures because right from the very start they practice it and we just have to respect it in our side. If we join in other culture or even visit to their own land, we have to balance our selves because this may look different to their ways or how they act in their society. “Trying out new one’s sword “, this is very different and unusual in Filipinos. We think that it is very immoral because we kill people just to prove to our leaders or our masters that we are fitted to be a trust worthy Samurais. The sword for them is very important that they test it to build or stabilize his honor and not to offend his ancestor and prove to his emperor that he must be called a Samurai soldier. The only restrictions that they will follow are that they cannot test their sword to another Samurais. The scientists also encounter that problem about their rights to experiment subjects. Some test animals but people disagree because they can kill live animals just to prove their theory right. Some scientist also use fellow human as a test subject for their projects. There are two ways on expressing our feelings towards other culture. If we cannot praise them criticize them. We judge things because we just want to express our feeling towards a subject. We humans always do judging. What we saw and what we only feel is what we conclude.

xi

Moral judgment serves as our basis to compare our own cultures for us to realize what is good and bad. If we judge our own culture and compare it to others, it makes a set an alternative and misunderstanding of our own culture because if we compare other culture we have the tendency to be confused we do this and why they do those traditions. 5 Book review Questions: 1. What is a moral isolation for Mary Midley? 2. Why we cannot criticize culture that we don’t understand? 3. What Midgley falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed? 4. Is it good to learn new things from strangers? 5. What is Isolating barrier?

What I have learned I’ve learned new things about the concept in judging cultures and the questions raised by the author. It helps me understand how we able to defend our beliefs and respect others. We have our own tradition that we respect and we must be able to res Review Questions What is “moral isolationism”? She tells that Moral isolationism is a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning. It falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of many influences. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? Tsujigiri is a practice by Japanese Samurais of trying new sword to cut and test on chance wayfarers provided that he is not a samurai also. Every custom has its own practice. At ancient time some offers baby or animal to their Gods. People might think that this Samurais practice is bad, but for them it is right because this is the way to satisfy their leaders. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? It is about cultures and how they act. The other people with different custom thinks that it is bad and we don’t realize what is there custom motivates them to do it. We have different practices; we do things that we think that is good and help us. Like in scientist experimenting objects is fatal because we can kill lives. But for them it is good because they will know the possibilities of success in their experiments What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? We have to prove that the practices of other culture are totally immoral and don’t apply to the norms. Discussion Questions Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?

xii

Some will say that Nietzsche is immoralist but some don’t. Everyone has its own opinion and thinking. The writers only express their ideas. It’s up for the readers to accept the fact that he tells the right or not. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer. Yes, we stand for our beliefs. We think that it is right. We tend to judge others because we think that what we they are doing is wrong. Our culture came from other culture also. It is like religion that influences morality. They build each other.

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To know about Utilitarianism To understand what is the point of this theory Quote: “The happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as mean to an end” Book Review: When we heard the word pleasure, we usually think about things that makes our life easy. For example, my definition of living a pleasurable life is having all the luxurious things that I want. Having these things, cars, expensive gadgets and stuffs, can make me happy. A life of pleasure is as close as living a life of perfection. I had read about two kinds of pleasure, the lower and higher pleasure. What I might consider higher pleasure may not be the same with my friends. For example, if I defined having luxurious things as my highest pleasure, maybe for other of my friends it is not. The definition of pleasure depends on how we perceive or how we want to feel and receive pleasures. The name itself simply defines and compares the two kinds of pleasure. Higher pleasure is the extreme pleasure one can have while the lower pleasures are also a pleasurable thing but not as great as the highest pleasure. Utilitarianism simply means happiness for the greatest number. The principle of utility is the greatest happiness principle meaning happiness of other people or the happiness of the greatest number of people must be considered first before your own happiness. For the definition of utilitarianism means happiness of greatest number of people. A utilitarian always considers happiness of other people. Maybe, for a utilitarian, other people’s happiness is always at the top priority since they believe that when you want to achieve happiness, we should always remember that happiness for the greatest number is the real pleasurable life.

xiii

5 Book review Questions: 1. What is the greatest Happiness Principle? 2. What is Utilitarianism? 3. What do we mean about the end justifies the means? 4. Why utilitarianism connected to happiness? 5. How are higher and lower pleasures differs? What I have learned: I learned about the concepts that John Stuart Mill presented in this topic. I can relate on his ideas because for me as an individual I can perform better If I can control my self and by doing such actions that can be beneficiary to others I can fulfill my self interests.

Review Questions: State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing. The principle of utility tells that the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable and whether we are considering our own good or that of other people is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain. The end of human action is necessarily also the standard of morality. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of a swine? He tells that the epicureans answered that they are not but their accusers. Who represent human nature as a degrading light; since the accusations supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. A beast pleasure does not satisfy a human beings conception of happiness. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? If there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preferences, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is more desirable pleasure. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? A noble character is always happier for its nobleness

Discussion Questions: Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think? For me yes, because the men are contented on pleasures that makes them happy because problems don’t appear.

xiv

Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasure is better than the lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasure over the higher ones? It depends on the situations that they encounter Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we can read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility." Is this true or not? As a Christian I agree Many commentators have thought Mill's proof of principle of utility is defective. Do you agree? Yes

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: Quote: “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end” John Stuart Mill Book Review: This book is about the different opposition about utilitarianism and he presented many arguments and the defense of utilitarianism. Right actions are those that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each person’s happiness counted as equally important. I agree on this statement because it how you see the actions and the consequences it can affect. Hedonism is introduced; It is the idea that happiness is the one ultimate good (and unhappiness the one ultimate evil) is known as hedonism. It is an ancient Greeks popular theory. The consequences all that matters is one of the topic, in this statement. The end justifies the means. The ideas or fundamental of the theory will be based on the result of the actions. He also sight different ideas about anti utilitarianism. The defense of utilitarianism is stated. They site three line of defense. The first example that the anti utilitarian presented seemed unrealistic. The rule and act utilitarian are explained. 5 Book review Questions: 1. What is classical theory? 2. What is the first proposition? Second and third? 3. 3. Who is James Rachels? 4. Why does he object Utilitarianism?

xv

5. Why happiness is desirable?

What I have learned I learned about the different arguments that are presented and I can relate to their sides Review Questions Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? Classical Utilitarianism, the theory defended by Bentham and Mill, can be summarized in three propositions. First, Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that caused. And Third, In calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? The idea that happiness is the one ultimate goal and unhappiness is the one ultimate evil is known as hedonism. It is a theory way back as far as ancient Greeks that good and bad account of the way they make us feel. Because of what you feel like accidents happened makes you bad or good. That’s what the hedonism tells us. The Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. What are the objections about justice, rights and promises? It is about weighing the situations. The utilitarian is focusing on the result that he weighs. Doing the right thing for the utilitarian is not good according to the anti-utilitarian because even, For example, in justice, bear false witness against other is a crime. The punished one is innocent but the utilitarian tells it is right to do it because. The nest thing will happen is a riot and many will die in that case. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule- utilitarianism reply to the objections? The new version of the theory is called Rule Utilitarianism, to contrast it with the original theory it now commonly called Act Utilitarianism. The Rule-Utilitarianism has no difficulty copying with the three anti-utilitarian arguments while the Act-utilitarianism will face the tempted argument that he will bear false witness against the innocent man. What is the third line of defense? The third line of defense is the Act-Utilitarianism and a perfectly defensive doctrine

Discussion Questions

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.

xvi

No, being a human we have our own beliefs on what we will be doing. It’s our nature to decide on the things we do. If the utilitarianism conflicts with our decision, we must first consider all the concepts that we will do. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams? We have to weigh in what we will do. Level the things that will be affected. If it is non-human animals, It depends on the situation. If you saw a man and an animal want to kill him. You must consider first the human because in the nonhuman it is the cycle of their live. They think that they are predator. We must take good care of our nature because life cycle is in our hands. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree? I agree on Rachels claims about merit that should be given moral consideration independent of utility.

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To know what is Categorical Imperative is all about To know the philosophical ideas of Emmanuel Kant Quote: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Book Review: Emmanuel Kant is a German and known as one of the most important philosopher of all time. Obviously he contributed a lot in all areas of philosophy. Philosophy grew, the more philosophy introduced the more critics and development happened. He discusses about our moral duty and he said that it can be formulated as one supreme rule and it is the categorical imperative. He tackles the topic about the supreme rule by considering the nature of good will and duty. These are the topics that he sights Good will, the good will and its result, the good will and duty, the motive of duty, the categorical imperative, the formula of end itself. For me by having a categorical imperative perspective means that you have the ability to do things that needs automatic decision by which you instantly resolve. What I mean is that if there is a standards in doing things right you are ready in the sense that you know what to do in some situations that you are encountering. If you have the advantage in some situations, you can use it for your own good and also you can share it to others for you also to gain happiness in your life.

xvii

The hypothetical imperative differs from the categorical imperative. The word itself explains the categorical imperative. Category means you have the norms o r the standard to follow while in hypothetical it’s only in your mind and it might become a universal law. The duties for others and duties for ourselves are illustrated in the reading by which we can refer to our own lives because we also might encounter or he has encountered the same situations. Integrative Questions: 1. What is Categorical imperative? 2. What is a universal law? 3. What is “maxim”? 4. What is discussed in the topic about Good Will? 5. What is practical imperative? What I have learned It’s about the categorical imperative by which we are able to act and what standards are we going to use. It’s about case to case basis by which we do things not just for our self but also for the others. Review Questions: Explain Kant’s account of the good will. “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill.” Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Act before the reason and reasons before you act Hypothetical imperative requires a certain action is a given situation. A categorical imperative you should do what you must or need to do. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." You do things according to the “maxim” or norms and “universal law” is the law by which we are ought to act State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it. “The end justifies the mean”, If you are doing something you must consider some actions that can replace on what’s on your mind. There are instance that you must choose the directions of your actions. Discussion Questions Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

xviii

For me NO, because the points of these versions are the same it only modifies the point of view of the people. It all count to the good will 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 counterexample. Still we do things what we ought to act. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify no moral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism? For me this is a good criticism. th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: Be able to understand what is happiness and virtue for Aristotle point of views. To learn what western philosophy’s side on this topic Quote: “All human being seeks happiness, and happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” Book Review: Aristotle made a great and important contribution to all areas of philosophy and it includes the formulation of traditional logic. He is one of the founders of Western Philosophy. In what I’ve read, I agree on Aristotle argument that all human being seeks happiness, and happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. For me, happiness is something that brings joy to our lives and not only because of wealth, power and honor. Some people are look contented on their personal life. In their deeper understanding of their true goal they are still lacking something they want to achieve. Our great motivation and if we want something we ought to try much harder to achieve other goals and our self fulfillment and needs don’t stop when we achieve something. Aristotle says that when we seek happiness we are seeking something accordance with the virtue. He said that we are happy because of the activities we’ve done when we nurture our soul. This means that if we do good things to others this makes ourselves happier than we have helped. There are two virtues that are said in the topic, the moral virtue and the intellectual virtue. The moral virtue is said to be comes from training and habit. While intellectual virtue produces the most perfect happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation. Happiness is natural for us. Sometime we don’t intend to be happy of the situations happened but still we become happy without any pleasures. Men are born to be evidently searching for more. They always think that happiness is something that you are on top. But see what rich people act nowadays. They seem different because they think that they own everything and they think that they are the master of the slaves. Do you think they are really happy with that? Integrative Questions:

xix

1. What is intellectual virtue? 2. What is moral virtue? 3. Are your happiness stops? 4. Do you think all virtue that is done results to happiness? 5. If you got all the pleasure, power and wealth do you think that it will help you to achieve happiness? In Aristotle’s view of happiness. What I have learned: I know the different kind of virtues and knew theories about the meaning of happiness and pleasures. As a student a have now the point of views that will help me in my studies and can create a good result for my future career. Review Questions What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? Aristotle argues that all human being seeks happiness, and happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Happiness for him is not all about wealthy life by having the power and advantage but it’s about your self fulfillment. Happiness is related to virtue if we do good things and that makes us happy. It is related to pleasures because men are born to grab pleasure or they want to be on top. That’s makes them happy. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Moral virtue comes from training and habit Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? Everyone can be happy by the way we act. It depends on the situation if we feel the happiness Discussion Questions Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts but what if anything is wrong with a life of pleasure? They are only happy because of pleasures they attain. They only want money and be on top of the others. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not? For me I don’t agree. Even they though they formulated some of the philosophical theories of happiness. But still they will realize that happiness is a self reaction on the things that they experienced.

xx

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Joel Fienberg: The Nature and Value of Rights Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: To know new topic on this chapter and to understand the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties and be able to know what is personal desert and sovereign right means. Quote: “One important difference then between making legal claiming that is that the former is a legal performance with direct legal consequences whereas the latter is often a mere piece of descriptive commentary with no legal force” Book Review: Many questions raised in my mind. Nowheresville is something difficult. If we have no rights at all, we humans are born to be free. We can obtain many things with our freedom by the standard we follow. She explains The Doctrine of the logical and correlative of rights and duties. The rights and duties are connected in the sense that we uphold our rights. This doctrine has two claims. First, All rights entail other people’s duties and second, that all duties entail other people’s rights. We have the skill to claim our rights and we do well and it looks the same as the right for us to do or apply our rights. We the citizen of the state may have rights but the duties must be done willingly for us to make things possible. We do our duties as an employee but in Nowheresville you have no rights to accuse something or to go against your will. You have the right but the duties may be much heavy in the sense that it will overcome the rights. Integrative Questions: 1. What is Nowheresville? 2. Are we involved in the sovereign rights monopoly? 3. What are claim rights? 4.

If you were Joel Fienberg, will you agree on his side? If no, why do you disagree?

5. What is the concept on personal desert and why do we deserve something good? What I have learned: I learned new things by understanding our rights and value of rights. It makes sense for me to relate on this topic because I act as a natural human and these theories represents each one of us. Review Questions: Describe Nowheresville. How this world different from our world?

xxi

It is a word different from us because we have no rights to defend our selves or moral claims are limited. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine? The rights and duties are connected in the sense that we uphold our rights. This doctrine has two claims. First, All rights entail other people’s duties and second, that all duties entail other people’s rights. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? Personal Desert means when a person deserves something good from us what is meant in parts is that there would be a certain claim that you cannot avail because your rights are limited only. The good thing is that rewards are given by higher authority to the weaker one. You cannot claim rewards even you deserve it. You are only entitled to be given not to claim. Explain the notion of a sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? The sovereign has a certain duty to treat his subjects well, but this duty was owed not to the subjects directly but to God, just as we might have duty to a person to treat his property well, but of course no duty to the property itself but only to the owner and was quite capable of harming his subjects What are claim rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? It simply means the legal power to claim one’s right. It serves as ou shield of protection to secure our rights. Discussion Question:

Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not? Yes, because he site an example when people have no rights. Then he makes illustrate how we can claim our rights for our own good. Can you give a non circular definition of claim rights? I think it’s the same with the definition given

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations:

xxii

To learn new things about our rights and to be able to know why we have to take our rights seriously Quote: “In most cases when we say that someone has “right” to do something, we imply that it would be wrong to interfere with his doing it, or at least that some special grounds are needed for justifying any interference.” Book Review: Ronald Dworkin is a University professor in Jurisprudence, Oxford University and law professor in New York University. He is the author of many books where this reading is taken from. On the first part, his view is that if people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. The reading site an example that the citizen has the right of speech then the must not interfere on what people says unless it is necessary to protect other rights. I agree on his statement because our rights are connected to other rights. For example, we have the right to privacy and by that we have the rights to protect our name. News must very careful on reporting some events because sometimes it’s not proper because the people of the state have the right to know the truth and events happened in their state. Issues might be right and they have to balance everything. The rights of citizens are important because we have to balance the equality and the truth must prevail in laws which must be fair. We have the moral and political rights. These rights are for everyone. The legislator of the state made the political rights of the state in order to have our individual and social rights. We must respect others and thus we have to respect our laws. The moral rights are said to be protected by morality in the sense that to protect and solve moral problems that we encounter. There are levels on how to form our rights. It passes through many stages for it to be implemented. The Supreme Court handles the political rights of everyone. Their decisions must be respected. An issue arises when some have misunderstanding about the court decisions. We are also capable of breaking the law. There are many cases that we ought to do things that are contrary to the law for the benefit of the majority. Morality and laws have conflicts. It is morally wrong to hurt someone in sports but in the law you cannot accuse people when you are hurt in sport like boxing (in some cases). 5 Book review Questions: 1. Why do we have rights? 2. What is the definition of moral rights and rights? 3. Can we break laws? 4. Who create the political rights and individual rights? 5. If you are in the position to create laws, what will it be? What I have learned I learned that we have to take our rights seriously because everywhere we go it serves as our protection as a citizen or even foreign individuals. Review Questions: What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the USA Constitution? Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense is that if a people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them The American provides a set of individual legal rights in the First Amendment, and in the due process, equal protection, and similar clauses.

xxiii

Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights. Legal rights are the rights of every citizen in a nation. These rights are made by the constitution or state laws that allow the citizen to do what are their rights. It’s more likely about human rights. If we talk about moral rights it is govern by our own selves. Moral rights are the rights that are protected by morality or it is the rights that are not written but we built this by our minds. One good example is the Mercy Killing. For some it is legal but still for others they consider it immoral. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive? The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the individual and the demands of society and the second model is that the government inflates a right. He find more attractive on the second model. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights? The institution requires an act on faith on the part of the minorities and and the majorities will defend themselves. Discussion Questions Does a person have the right to break the law? Why or why not? Yes, even if it is the law and it’s not suited in the situation you into. You must break it or maybe this action may cause less damage or it can do well to others. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism? For me I think, yes Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not? I don’t think Kant will accept rights in the strong sense.

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by John Rawls: A Theory of Justice Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations: I want to know about the theory of justice and how it applies for the common advantage of everyone To understand further more about fairness and equalities

xxiv

Quote: “All social values-liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the basis of self-respect-are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage”- John Rawls Book Review: John Rawls is a Harvard philosophy teacher and this book reading is taken from his famous book A Theory of Justice. His theory states that there are two principles of justice. First is the principles that involves equal basic liberties and the second principle is about the concerns of the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. He also said that they are the principles that are free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. And he also called this as justice of fairness. For me I agree on his statements because as a person I have the right to decide and pursue what I know and what is right in respect to others. If we cooperate in one association, we are engage in their principle and by that we act as one team. The basic rights and duties are created to make orderly functions and for the social benefits. We have the ability to decide what standards we know and by this, fairness can be achieved. He also state that in justice as fairness the origin position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This only means that justice is not bias, because it does not look on the person who is powerful or his social status. There are no advantages or disadvantages in fair justice. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. These are the first statements of the two principles, Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for the others and second, Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all.. For my opinion this is fair enough, in the statement of the principle we are equal in the sense that we are part of the advantages given to all of us. Freedom for all must be freedom for everyone. The common liberty for us is our human rights. Second principle is also fair because in a state that you are in to. We have the basic rights to have equal treatments whether in public and private society. The theory of justice depends on the theory of society in ways that makes clearer to us all. But these principles have also many consequences. The article also states some of the situations that might conclude what principles are you referring and some instances that it will create conflicts among others. Integrative Questions: 1. What are the two principles of justice? 2. What is veil of Ignorance? 3. How can we apply our liberty? 4. What do you mean about justice as fairness? 5. Does a contract of agreement means fairness? What I have learned I learned about principles about justice and what are my rights and the equalities of every individual to perform their liberties and by these principles that we use as a guide for our own human rights. Review Questions: Carefully explain Rawl’s conception of the original position.

xxv

No one knows his position in the society. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantage or disadvantage in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance of social circumstances. State and explain Rawl’s first principle of Justice Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. It simply means that everyone has the right of liberty in a state. They have the freedom and they can be accused. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed? Everyone will have their own rights but the distribution of wealth and income will not be equal.

Discussion Questions On the first principle, each person has 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? To do whatever things that you can do regardless that everyone will not be harmed or affected by your actions. Taking such actions need to be justified. In some point there are rights that must be limited. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than those given by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism? Yes, for me it’s not really an advantage because everyone can excel. It just happened that you are born to be just like that and some don’t. Progress and success are in your hands.

th

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 Edition Book Review: Chapter One – Ethical Theories by Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice Internet Reference:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-JamesWhite/dp/0534517242 Learning Expectations:

xxvi

To know what is this “Need for More Than Justice” is all about and to view new theories that will help me understand not only justice but more other insights. Quote: “There is a little disagreement that justice is a social value of very great importance, and injustice is evil.” Book Review: The view of Annette Baier is that men and women do make their decisions differently. She claims that the men’s decision is based on the theory of justice while the women’s decision is based on the sense of care and trust. The view of Annette Baier is that men and women do make their decisions differently. She claims that the men’s decision is based on the theory of justice while the women’s decision is based on the sense of care and trust. She is a feminist philosopher because I think she claim that the shortcoming of a system of ethics based solely in justice. The solution that she introduced is the “care” as an ethical system and this may be a supplementary solution to the theories of justice. She also claims that the perspective of women as referred to their approach to care fulfills emotional needs for them to be attached to do something. The need for attachments is natural for human beings. Free thinking is if for equals and in reverse the care is between unequal. Care is for the powerless like the females. Her theory presented may help us to further help the principle of justice and move on to the clearer and much better point of views. He state that her principles are for all men and women.

Integrative Questions: 1. What is Annette Baiers view about the theory is of mans decision. 2. Who is Annette Baiers? 3. What is a theory of justice? 4. What is “care” for her? 5. Why do women act that way? What I have learned: This chapter makes sense not only for women but also for men. The complimentary and supplementary subjects that can be helpful in one’s decisions and I also learned about new things about the men and women’s philosophical decisions.

xxvii

Use Case Diagram System Name: Copyright Registration and Payment System Subject: register copyright work

Submit work

Process all Application Form Cashier Applicant

Register and validate Applications form and work

Process payments

Issue receipts Staff Secretary

Issue Stamps

xxviii

Activity Diagram(Existing) System Name: Copyright Registration and Payment System Subject: Register Copyright Work Secretary

Applicant

Cashier

Staff

Start Validate Work

Submit all application form

Yes

No

Issue Payment Slip Pay registration fee

Receive amount & Issue Receipt

Pay for stamps required Receive amount & give stamp Submit receipt and stamp Validate receipt and stamp

Confirm Registration

End

xxix

Activity Diagram(proposed) System Name: Copyright Registration and Payment System Subject: Register Copyright Work Secretary

Applicant

Cashier

Start Validate Work

Submit all application form

Yes

No

Issue Payment Slip Pay registration fee and pay for stamp

Receive amount & Issue Receipt w/ stamp

Submit receipt and stamp Validate receipt and stamp

Confirm Registration

End

xxx

Use Case Narrative Identification Summary Title: Application for Copyright Summary: The applicant will register for her/his copyright works Actors: Student, Secretary, Cashier and Staff Creation Date: February 26, 2009 By: Jann Michael Babiera Flow of events Preconditions: 1. The student should have a an application form and complete information 2. The affidavit should be notarized to the public 3. The work is created by the applicant and original Main Success Scenario 1. The secretary will confirm the registration 2. The cashier will issue a receipt 3. The staff will issue a stamp Error Sequences: 1. Incomplete data and needed requirements 2. Affidavit is not notarized to the public 3. Payment issues Post Condition 1. Issue of the claimants form for the registered form that had been applied.

xxxi

xxxii