Contemporary Moral Problems

Contemporary Moral Problems

Seventh Edition by James E. White

2/26/2009

Submitted By: Neferteri Grace P. Jumawan

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Table of Contents Book Review: Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels Book Review: Religion, Moral, and Conscience by John Arthur Book Review: MasterMaster-SlaveSlave-Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche Book Review: Trying Out One’s Sword by Mary Midgley Book Review: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill Book Review: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels Book Review: The Categorical Imperatives Imperatives by Immanuel Kant Book Review: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle Book Review: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg

2

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels

Amazon

: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quotes

:

“Our

ordinary

thinking

about

morality

is

full

of

assumptions

that

we

almost

never

question.” “The agent is merely doing what he most wants to do” “People will act unselfishly all the time” “If I want only good my own goods, and care nothing for others, then I’m selfish; but if I also want other people to be well-off and happy, and if I act on that desire, then my action is not selfish.” “A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interests.” “The object of our attitude is the attainment of the goal” – James Rachels

Learning Expectation: I want to know and understand the concept of Egoism and Moral Scepticism and how does it affect the belief and act of the people. I also want to know how the author explains his stand regarding selfishness and moral views.

Review

: In

this

part,

James

Rachels

discussed

Egoism

and

Moral

Scepticism.

He

discussed

the

legend of Gyges. The story is about Gyges who found a magic ring and used it for his own motives. When he found the ring and discovered the capability of that ring, he immediately goes to the Royal Palace to seduce the Queen and kill the King so that he would be the new King and get the throne. Since he knew that the magic ring can make him invisible and can make him go anywhere he wanted, he took that opportunity to do his bad motives. Because of that he was the new king. Then, when the throne passed to him, his behaviour was totally unacceptable. Imagine he can make anything he wanted like he can sleep with other woman without seeing that he was there, he can also kill innocent people, he can make free all the prisoners, and he can do whatever he liked to the people. It seems that he found pleasures in this case. He took advantage the uses of the magic ring. The legend of Gyges shows selfishness and immorality because of the fact that he killed someone just because he wanted to be the new king and wanted the Queen. In this aspect, it was

3

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

totally unacceptable and unethical. His behaviour, his actions, his desire was totally not in the context of good and morality. I don’t see any ethical moves here. Arthur

and

Glaucon

discussed

their

sceptical

and

moral

views.

They

discussed

the

psychological and ethical egoism. They stated that psychological egoism says that all men are bound to be selfish ones in every action they do.

In this case, even though men act as if the

advantage would be taken by others, it is likely to be not. Then, in ethical egoism is in the contrast of the first one. Author stated that it was a view wherein men ought to act whatever he likes to. Here, when men acts and behave and have no obligations to do anything accepts their own interests. What I like about the topic is they able to defined and explained how selfishness and egoism occurs on our acts.

What I’ve learned: I learned that selfishness can be your own motives and interest will be also part of those selfish acts.

Integrative Questions: 1.

What is Psychological Egoism?

2.

What is Ethical Egoism?

3.

What is the difference of the two?

4.

What is rational egoist?

5.

How does the legend of Gyges related to the topic Egoism and Secpticism?

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism Review Questions:

1.

Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story? The story of the legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who has found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. The magic ring was used to seduce the Queen. Here, the magic ring has the capability that when someone uses it, he/she can be invisible and allowing that someone to go to anywhere he wanted. Gyges used it as a tool to enter into the Royal Palace for the Queen and to kill the King. And once the king died, Gyges will eventually be in the throne and Queen will be his wife. Maybe the reader can ask the behaviour itself of Gyges. Is the behaviour and actions of Gyges wrong or right and how does it affects his virtue?

4

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

2.

Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism states that all men are bound to be selfish on the way they do things while the ethical egoism is the opposite of the first. Ethical egoism explained that men ought to act whatever he likes to.

5

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism Moral, Religion, and conscience by John Arthur

Amazon

: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quotes

:

“Religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action; and religion is essential for there even to be a right and wrong.”

“One reason is what it implies. Suppose we were to grant that the diving command theory is correct, so that actions are right just because they are commanded by God.”

Learning Expectation: I want to learn how the author explained and defined morality and religion and how they were connected or not to each other. I also expect to learn how he handles and give his thoughts in every argument. Lastly, I want to know how he fully explained the divine command theory.

Review:

John Arthur, the author, wrote the book entitled Religion, Morality, and Conscience. In this chapter, the author explained the definition of Morality and Religion and how it is related or influenced to each other. He said that morality is behaviour and actions of the people while the religion is the belief of the people in supernatural forms. Here, he means that religion is independent to the morality. It doesn’t mean that when your actions are wrong, it will be irreligious. But for some reasons, when your actions lead to be wrongful like for instance abortion, the religion will come out and the church will probably disapprove that actions.

Morality

and

Religion

will

be

somewhat

connected

in

a

sense

that

when

you

do

something,

analyze it whether it’s wrong or right and by this religion or your belief will comes next. And that religion is necessary for the moral guidance or moral motivation.

Another

topic

that

Arthur

had

discussed

was

the

Divine

Command

Theory.

Divine

Command

Theory means God is the ruler of all. Here you will either know if the actions of the people are right or wrong if it was commanded by God. If God commanded that this action, beliefs are right, it is. But when it wasn’t commanded by God it means that it is wrong. God is responsible for judging and knowing whether the people’s action is right or wrong. So in result, God can change any rules whether we think it might be right or wrong. What I like about Arthur’s argument was when he asked and explained that with this Divine Command Theory, God can change any rules and according to this theory, God can change the good ones to bad ones. Meaning it is possible that God would change and order people that this action such as helping other people will lead to cruelty and that cruelty will be the right one and vice versa.

6

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

In conclusion, I like how Arthur discussed the morality and religion and how it is connected in some ways and how they religion influenced the actions of the people. Here, we can say that it would be necessary for us to know how actions be related to your beliefs and this belief affected your actions.

What I’ve learned: I learned that

Morality is somewhat

necessary or connected to

religion in a sense that you’re

actions will be criticized. Your actions will influence your beliefs.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is Divine Command Theory?

2.

How is religion related or connected to Morality?

3.

Who is John Arthur?

4.

Who is John Dewey?

5.

What is the title of the book written by John Dewey?

Review Questions: 1.

According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?

Religion and Morality is different. As Arthur explained, it seems that Religion is different from Morality in

a sense that religion is an act wherein worship, praying, supernatural

beliefs, institutional forms, and others were involved. While in the other side, morality is more on how people act and behave which lead to the act of obligations, rights, laws, and rules. Here, it seems that both are different when it comes to practices. But still people don't

see

that

these

two

concepts

are

merely

connected

in

which

they

try

to

make

situation wherein morality and religion will somewhat combine. For instance, people are trying to do

the

right thing because they

think that

they will

eventually be

punished

whenever they violated any rules or in the contrary of the law. Here, you can see that those two concepts are trying to meet when it comes to any situations. People will look upon the possibility that if they do something wrong or right, God will always be here to judge or see your acts. In this situation, the concept of religion comes. And religion will trigger whether your acts or you moral will intend to be right or wrong.

2.

Why inst religion necessary for moral motivation?

Here, it seems that religion is important or necessary when people do the right or wrong thing. That religion is one of the things that people intend to support when they make

7

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

decisions or when they act. But in the contrary, you may find that religion has nothing to do with people's act. As Arthur mentioned, whenever people act or make decisions in their life, they tend to not relate it to any religious acts. it is where people has the capacity to think what is right and wrong even without the concept of religion. It seems that people will probably think that they act or they do that not because of the religion itself but for the purpose of not hurting themselves, their family, or friends. Whether they act morally or not,

religion

will

not

probably

be

one

of

the

reasons

why

they

acted

like

that.

It's

somewhat they do things without thinking that religion might be related to it or will it concern them. Aside from this, people don't think that religion will come in making moral decisions. Here, people sometimes don't consider the thought of religion in making their acts or just in making decisions in life.

3.

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

Some people think that religion is necessary as a source of moral knowledge and some may not. Here, people are more on the fact that they make decisions not because of the religion or some other reasons. They tend have the conclusions in mind about people’s motives. It seems

that

people

must take

into account also the

religion in

making the

necessary acts. But on the other hand, people think that whenever they decide whether to act accordingly or act harshly, it seems that they are most in favor on their beliefs and try to not relate religion as they decided on certain things. It’s true that they need also guidance and people build concept to their mind that they cannot know certain acts like doing what is right without even knowing or having a guidance of those religious teachings.

4.

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

According to the author, Divine Command Theory explained that God is related to moral law or the same with the legislatures. Here, it means that God is like the most powerful or should I say God is the ruler of all. It mentioned that without God’s command, there would be no moral rules. With this definition, Arthur thought that it's not a good idea that you define god as likely as legislatures. Arthur rejected this divine theory of command because of the reasons behind this concept. Here, he said that actions are all right whenever it was commanded by God. He stated that if God commanded us to do that and those, that actions are right and same thing if God didn't commanded this act, it is not wrong.

8

9

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

5.

According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

Arthur argued that

morality and religion is merely independent to

each other.

But he

makes it a point to explain also the other side of it. Since, morality and religion is not the same. Mr. Arthur

explained morality influenced by religion. Since

morality involves the

actions and behavior of the people, it will be related to the religion once your action compromise

to

the

concepts

of

religion.

One

example

of

this

is

Abortion.

When

this

happened, morality and religion will interact and be connected to each other. Abortion is immoral and church will not agree to this. According to Arthur, the views and thoughts of the

people

about

moral

issues

are

based

or

influenced

by

the

religious

practices

and

outlook.

6.

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

As Dewey stated Morality is social, Arthur has his own interpretation on the statement of Dewey. He explained how religion and morality seems to be connected or influenced each other or might as well that morality is social. Here, Arthur mentioned his 3 arguments about this. The first one is that the existence of morality is based on our potential to think of

our

choices

and

which

alternatives

should

we

follow.

The

second

one

talks

about

people and how they manage their relationships among other people. Then the last one is about how people being a subject to criticism by others.

Discussion Questions: 1.

Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?

I

think

Arthur

argued

about

this.

He

disapproved

the

divine

command

theory.

He

explained that the concept of the divine command theory is somewhat unacceptable because of the fact that you can only determine the right or wrong if it was commanded by God. So, Arthur mentioned some of his thoughts explaining why he’s in favor of this theory. 2.

If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?

As stated by Dewey, morality is social and we have obligations to whether humans or nonhuman

animals.

Since

everyone

has

its

way

on

surviving

and

everyone

whether

you’re

a

human or animals, you have the rights to be in this world. We can have obligation to nonhumans by allowing them to live and survive in this world.

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

3.

What

does

Dewey

mean

by

moral

education?

Does

a

college

ethics

class

count

as

moral

education?

Moral education is like teachings. Here, you will learn whether the actions would be in the right or wrong one.

10

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review: Book Author Amazon: Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James: Contemporary Moral Problems: Master- and Slave- Morality : Friedrich Nietzsche

White/dp/0495553204/

Quotes:

“Every elevation of the type “man” has hitherto been the work of aristocratic society- and so will it always be- a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other”. -

Friedrich Nietzsche

“Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society” -

Friedrich

Nietzsche

“There is Master- and Slave- Morality”- Friedrich

Nietzsche

Review

: The book titled “Master- and Slave- Morlaity” was discussed by Mr. Nietzsche. When you read the

whole essay, you may find that the concept of master- and slavery are one of the topics that should be discussed by now. Right now we do encounter this kind of act. Every country has this kind of master and slave. Some people might accept this fact and some might not. People will absolutely being in pain when they took this concept. In this chapter, the author discussed corruption which is quite good to hear and to know. The author also discussed and characterized a good and healthy society. The author explained the concept of master morality and slave morality. The master morality is different to slave morality and that’s a fact. The behaviour of the master is more into the bad ones because master is a master and they have the power to do whatever they like to do with their slaves. Master thinks that slaves are their property wherein fact it’s not. Slaves are not their property. Slaves are being suffered and master gives so much pain to the slaves. As long as there’s a master, slave would be always being a slave and the same with masters. Here, the author also tackled the so-called Will. He explained the Will of denial of life. He stated and described it as a principle of dissolution and decay. With this, mean or someone must extremely go to its basis and refuse to accept all the weaknesses like injury, cruelty, and others. Right now, master morality and slave morality are always acceptable any country. Many countries have its own way and have this kind of morality. It was established to us to have slaves and masters.

It’s

quite annoying that people didn’t think that slave is one of the bad things that we might encounter. Since slavery is against our human rights, they didn’t know that those slaves are also humans and they shouldn’t make people slaves. One example of this is the maid and the boss. In this example, there is s slave and

11

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

master.

The

slave

is

the

maid

wherein

he

does

a

lot

of

work

and

the

master

is

the

one

who

give

compensation to the slaves. People are suffering nowadays because of this kind of behaviour and actions.

What I’ve learned: I learned that exploitation must not be used by any corrupt society.

Integrative Questions: 1.

What is Master morality?

2.

What is Slave morality?

3.

What do you mean by Exploitation?

4.

How exploitation was be related to corruption, primitive society?

5.

What is Will?

Friedrich Nietzsche: MasterMaster- and SlaveSlave-Morality Review Questions: Questions: 1.

How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

2.

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

3.

Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.

4.

Explain the Will to Power.

Discussion Questions: 1.

Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?

2.

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

12

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Book:

Contemporary Moral Problems: Trying out One’s New Sword

Author

: Mary Midgley

Amazon

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

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

Quotes

:

“Isolating barriers simply cannot arise here” – Mary Midgley

“What is involved in judging?” – Mary Midgley

“The power of moral judgement is, in fact, not a luxury, not a perverse indulgence of the selfrighteousness.” – Mary Midgley

“When we judge something to be good or bad, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid” – Mary Midgley

“Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policy, no chance of profiting by other people’s insights or mistakes.” – Mary Midgley

Review

:

Ms. Mary Midgley, the author tackles the moral isolationism. Midgley stated that moral isolationism engages the view of anthropologists and explained that people cannot criticize cultures because they don’t understand it.

She cited an example about a Japanese culture or what they called Tsujigiri. Tsujigiri is

very controversial that time. It means trying out ones new sword on a chance wayfarer. It is required for them to try samurai sword because it will identifies their honour. Here, they can identify if the sword works properly by the means of slicing someone at a single blow from the shoulder at the opposite flank. The sword

is

the

basis

of

the

honours

of

their

ancestors,

their

empire,

and

themselves.

Midgley

had

an

argument about moral isolationism. According to her, Moral isolationism describes or concludes on the moral reasoning. It is in the context of immoralism which determines difficulty in a logical manner.

13

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

She also discussed the concept of judging or criticizing other cultures. Here, she said that the main basis of judging cultures is our own cultures. You cannot criticize other culture if you don’t know your own culture.

In this generation, our cultures are important. We are moving in a world with different and mix cultures. People have their own understanding about their cultures and at the same time to others. People are now being judge by their actions and based on their cultures. In spite of that, people are trying their best just to understand every culture in order for them to become cooperative. Every individual must have understood every culture because it will be their basis in introducing who really they are.

What I’ve learned: I learned that you must first understand your own culture before you criticize others. You have to learn how to be more flexible when it comes to the culture of others. Some culture might help people and some might not.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is Tsijugiri?

2.

What do you mean by trying out ones sword?

3.

What is Moral Reasoning?

4.

What is Moral Isolationism?

5.

According to Midgley, What is the basis of criticizing ones culture?

Review Question: 1.

Moral Isolationism defines as the view of the anthropologist and others wherein they explain that

people cannot criticize cultures which they don’t understand.

2.

Tsujigiri means trying out ones new sword. It is very controversial in the Japanese Culture. Here, people

have to try new sword to someone. When it works, they need to slice someone at a single blow. This will identify their honor, the honors of their ancestors, and empire.

3.

Midgley

reasoning.

stated

that

Moral

isolationism

would

fall

in

the

concept

of

a

general

ban

on

the

moral

14

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

4.

Midgley said that in determining the basis of criticizing ones culture, people should know first their

own culture.

Discussion Question: 1.

The only thing I know about being immoralist is being bad. Immoralist for me means the opposite of

being a good one. I think immoralists are just considering the concept of the Master-Morality and nothing else.

2.

I agree with Midgley. Today, there are lots of cultures that are mixed with different countries. When you

look at every aspect, you will find that one culture will be mix with another culture. If we take on the part of the Philippine settings, you will see that every culture correspond every identity. But since we suffered colonization at the past, our cultures were being mixed by other country. Right now, we have our own culture and at the same time we also adopt and use other cultures. I remembered one of my professor said that people are just adopting and borrowing ones culture. We use other culture for our own survival and motives.

15

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review: Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter

: Utilitarianism

Author

: John Stuart Mill

Amazon:

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

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

Quotes: “Happiness

of morality”

“The

has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria

– John Mill

desire of it is not different thing from the desire of happiness, any more than the love of music

or the desire of health”

– John Mill

“Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole” –

John Mill

Learning Expectation:

I am expecting to understand what really are utilitarianism and its effect on the individual. I also am wondering why John Stuart Mill, the author, discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. I want to know his argument on this topic.

Review: The chapter discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. The Author describes and explains the basic principles of Utilitarianism and why it is called as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mr. Mill defines the difference and relationship of happiness and pleasures.

According to Mill, the principle of utility or what he called as the Greatest Happiness Principle simply describes how every action becomes right as they tend to relate it to happiness, and becomes wrong as the opposite. Here, Mill cited that intended pleasures and absence of pain will determine by the means of happiness, and the pain itself involves unhappiness. One example of the unhappiness is when someone steals something. In this case, that someone is unhappy because of what he/she did. He/she will eventually feel bad after he did it. It only justifies the concept of unhappiness. People can identify unhappiness based

16

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

on their actions and behaviours. For some reason, if you did something wrong, you will feel bad and your conscience will not be at peace. Then, this is the time where people become unhappy.

In

this

chapter,

Mill

also

defines

the

concept

of

Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism

considers

majority.

Meaning, if something happens like for example in a country, the action for that matter will be based on the majority wherein they will identify the outcome of it.

For instance, someone kills the secretary of the country. When we say utilitarianism, it involves the majority. Since the effect of the death of the Secretary is big, it will bring us unhappiness. For , if the effect on them is big, it will only cause unhappiness and it will only be wrong for them.

Aside from the concept of Utilitarianism, Mill also discusses happiness, pleasures, and pain. Here, he said that you will only achieve happiness if it’s beyond pain.

What I’ve learned: I learned that you

will only feel the pain or unhappiness if your action is wrong. Based on the

Utilitarianism, happiness can achieve based on the desire of the person and the happiness itself identifies the absolute pain.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is Utilitarianism?

2.

What do you mean by Happiness is desirable?

3.

What is the Principle of Utility?

4.

What is lower pleasure?

5.

What is the difference between Higher and Lower pleasures?

Review Question: 1.

The Principle of Utility describes that when the action is right, it is happiness and when it’s wrong, it is unhappiness.

2.

As

Mill objects the Epicureans,

he stated that it

intellect, imaginations and others are not assigned.

will not be approved unless pleasures of the

17

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

3.

Mill defines higher pleasures as all who have experience decided preference while the Lower pleasures is defined based on who are competently acquainted to both.

4.

In this context, Happiness is described based on what the majority will say and feel. If the majority feel that the action is right or accepted, happiness will be established and when the utilitarian doesn’t accept that wrong behaviour, it will fall under the concept of unhappiness.

5.

According to Mill, The principle of Utility is happiness and all other thing as being described as desirables.

Discussion Question: 1.

When we say happiness it means pleasure but it doesn’t mean that when you are happy, there’s no pain. Happiness is an experience wherein people don’t feel pain but sometimes they tend to be happy because they sad. People sometimes are happy not because of pleasures. Maybe there are some instances that people are happy because they just want to keep away the pain or people just want

to

hide

the

pain.

I

don’t

agree

that

when

you

are

happy,

there’s

no

pain.

Sometimes,

happiness will lead you into pain. Sometimes happiness can cause you so much pain that you didn’t even realize that you are suffering from pain.

2.

Honestly,

when

I

read

the

meaning

of

higher

and

lower

pleasure,

I

had

a

hard

time

just

to

understand these concepts. I don’t understand the difference between higher and lower though the only thing that describes it is the fact that both are different on the amount it gives to the person.

3.

I think what Mill said is true. In the context of the principle of utility, individual will only be happy if it will benefit the majority. It’s a matter of how the actions will benefit the majority.

18

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review: Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels

Amazon

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

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

Quotes: “There is a sense in which no moral philosopher can completely reject Utilitarianism.” – James Rachels

Learning Expectation: I want to know how James Rachel discusses his arguments about Utilitarianism. I am expecting different arguments from Rachels.

Review

:

This chapter discusses the Classical Utilitarianism. Here, the author classifies it into three main points. The first one defines the actions are to be judged wrong or right solely in the virtue of their consequences. Second, you can assess consequences based on the happiness and unhappiness it brought to people or that is caused. Then lastly, it stated that no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

Aside from this, Rachels also discusses the objections about justice, right, and promises. In justice, people should bear false witness against the innocent individual. For instance, a person kills a boy. In this case, the killer is responsible for any lawsuit or imprisonment. The family of the boy who was killed has the right to demand for justice. In the context of rights, it identifies how the action is under morality or not. In the example that was given a while ago, you will find that the action or the behaviour of the person who killed the boy was unacceptable. It’s is reasonable to punished that human being because he committed a crime. In this case, the rights will be given to the family of the dead boy. Then in Promise or Backwardlooking reasons, throws the argument that the only thing that matters is the consequences.

Rachels, the author, also mentioned the concept of an Act-Utilitarianism. This Act-Utilitarianism is the old version of what they call Rule-Utilitarianism. This rule is referenced to the principle and the act of every individual. Those acts will be criticized and judged as right and wrong by the means of the reference to the rules.

19

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

What I’ve learned: Though Utilitarianism,

I

I

didn’t

enjoyed

purely reading

understand it

because

I

the

arguments

and

find

something

new

stand on

it.

of I

Rachels

learned

regarding

that

the

about

concept

of

utilitarianism is not just simply what’s best for the majority. The context of Utilitarianism is also broad.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is the Classical Utilitarianism?

2.

Differentiate the 3 main points of Classical Utilitarianism

3.

What is Rule Utilitarianism?

4.

What do you mean by Backward-Looking Reasons?

5.

What is the strength of Utilitarianism as described by Rachels?

Review Questions: 1.

Classical Utilitarianism is summed up in 3 propositions. Those are the ff:

a.

b.

First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their consequences.

Second,

in

assessing

consequences,

the

only

thing

that

matters

is

the

amount

of

happiness or unhappiness that is caused.

c.

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

2.

Hedonism – explains the happiness as one ultimate good and unhappiness as the ultimate evil. Based

on what Rachels stated, hedonism gets the thing in a wrong way. Hedonism has a misunderstanding on the nature of happiness.

3.

The objections about justice, rights, and promise are as follows:

a.

Justice – the argument is based when the action of a person is unacceptable by the law, that person should bear false witness against the innocent one.

b.

Rights – it describes the case of the not fictitious wherein the morality of the officer was involved.

c.

Promise/ Backward-Looking Reasons – if you promised someone, you must do it.

20

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

4.

Act-Utilitarianism or the Real-Utilitarianism (the new version theory) – the action will be judged based

on the rules that are established by reference to the principles.

5.

The

third

line

of

defense

is

conducted

by

a

small

group

of

contemporary

utilitarianism

who

has

different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments.

Discussion Question: 1.

For me it’s not acceptable. I will not choose utilitarianism over moral beliefs because in some point I am

not a utilitarian and aside from that, I don’t want to reject things that will just conflict any issues.

2.

Everyone deserves to be accepted even if your part is small. In utilitarianism, it is more focused on

human beings who are their concern.

3.

I agree to what Rachels said.

21

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review: Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems

Title:

The Debate over Utilitarianism

Author

: James Rachels

Amazon

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

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

Quotes

:

“To preserve one’s life is a duty”

“Rational nature exists as an end in itself”

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other; never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end......” –

Immanuel Kant

Learning Expectation: Expectation: I want to understand the concept of Categorical Imperatives. I also want to know how Mr. Kant describes and explain his thoughts regarding Good Will.

Review

: This chapter tackles about Categorical Imperatives. Mr. Immanuel Kant, the author, introduces the

Good Will. He defines the Good will by the means of Character. Here, he stated that it’s impossible to consider anything except the Good Will.

Kant also stated that one’s moral duty can be achieved by categorical imperatives. So far, I don’t understand what really categorical imperative is. But I believe that when I read the whole thing, I can get information and use it in the future.

Kant

mentioned

that

Good

Will

is

not

good

because

of

what

it

affects

or

accomplishes

and

because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. I agree to what Kant said in this statement. Good Will would is not good unless you do well. What I mean is you cannot get the real meaning of Good Will if you don’t know how to be good or how to do good things. The main issue here is people is not born to be bad and every individual is good by its nature.

22

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

What I’ve learned: I learned the concept of Good Will and how Good Will affects the people. I also learned that action does not depend on what you want to expect. There are things that your motives are against on your expectations.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is Categorical Imperative?

2.

What is a Good Will?

3.

What do you mean by motive of duty?

4.

What is Duty?

5.

What is hypothetical Imperative?

23

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

ARISTOTLE: Happiness and and Virtue Review Questions 1.

What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure?

2.

How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples

3.

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

Answers: 1.

Happiness According to

Aristotle, Happiness is an activity of the soul in

accordance with

perfect

virtue. He also said that happiness is not a pleasure, honor, or wealth. It’s a continuous looking for a soul’s potential for virtue. One can achieve happiness by being virtuous.

2.

Moral Virtue As Aristotle explained, Moral Virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Here, it says that this cannot be achieved by nature or it’s not something that arises by nature. It is like a habit. Person has to do something in order to get something. It’s like a habit which you will learn through a process. One example of this is reading books and writing. We definitely don’t know how to read books and write when we were babies. But time passed, we will able to learn and practice it. We need to train first in order for us to achieve this.

3.

There’s always a way were people can be happy. Everyone can be happy as long as they do things accordingly or in a right manner. People have their own definition for happiness. They find the true meaning of happiness and by doing something.

Discussion Questions 1.

Aristotle characterizes a life as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? There’s nothing wrong when sometimes people wants to have or to get into the life of pleasures. Pleasures are not bad as long as we are in the right track or we know how to deal with it in a right

manner. The life of pleasure

seems to be challenging

for us. In

people’s mind, pleasures have to sides. One is good and the other is opposite. Pleasures would only be bad if people or the one who wants pleasure is making or using it bad.

24

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

2.

Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than everyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not?

Philosophers

have

their own mind

and

have their

own perspectives.

They tend to be

happier than anyone else because they’ve done something or they achieve what they want to achieve, they get what they want, they learn something new, or maybe they prove something.

One

of

the

things

why

philosophers

are

something. Philosophers are happier because of the something interesting for them.

being

happy

is

that

they

get

wisdom they shared or they find

25

26

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

Book Review Book

: Contemporary Moral Problems

Title

: The Nature and Value of Rights

Author

: Joel Feinberg

Amazon

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

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

Quotes

:

“A legal duty is not something we are implored or advised to do merely; it is something the law, or an authority under the law, requires us to do whether we want to or not, under pain of penalty”

Learning Expectation

:

I want to know the stand of Joel Feinberg on this topic. I want to understand the concept of Nature and Value of Rights.

Review

:

Joel Feinberg, the author of the sub-chapter titled The Nature and Value of Rights, discusses all about Rights.

In

the

first

statement

of

Feinberg,

he

conducted

an

experiment.

Feinberg

asks

his

reader

imagine Nowheresville on his experiment. Nowheresville is a world wherein rights are not allowed.

to

In this

place, No one has its own right to give his own thoughts, to speak for himself/herself. If we are to compare this to our country or to other country, you might find that we are much more of a free country than Nowheresville in a sense that we have our own rights and use it in protecting ourselves, our country in a not usual issue. In Nowheresville, people in that place cannot claim because they don’t even have rights. There’s no place in Nowheresville that people can claim whatever damages as implied in any situation.

Feinberg also discussed the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. At first, I don’t understand

the

concept

of

this

doctrine.

As

the

author

explained,

this

doctrine

describes

duties

as

a

people’s rights and the rights that will give people’s duties. The author stated that it’s just a matter of Yes or No. Honestly, I didn’t understand his stand on the Yes or No.

Aside

from this, the

author defines

duty in a sense

that it is related

to people’s actions. Here

Feinberg explained that duty is a must which means even though people who do any kind of duty is required to do otherwise there’s what the author called under the pain of penalty. It is for the people to do it because there’s a due. Whether the people like it to do or not, it is for them to do it. Sometimes duty was

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

fulfilled but still people cannot determine whether that duty is for his/her betterment or happiness or it’s just a duty that you must accomplish.

The author cited an example. For instance, there’s a traffic light and it turned in red. Drivers have duty to stop and not to complain. They must do their duty otherwise they will be facing troubles. In this case, a person has a duty to comply with that. If you would base this example in Nowheresville, the one that was in the experiment of Feinberg, you will find that people doesn’t have any right to complain or to voice out their thoughts regarding to some issues because totally they don’t have their rights to do that.

What I’ve learned: Upon reading this, I find that duty is just a duty meaning person who is responsible to that duty must do it whether he/she is happy doing that or not. In this case, a person who is engaged in any duty doesn’t have the right to complain or if you have a duty, it is for you to accomplish it. It is an action that requires the person to do it. Here, person will not be able to find out if that duty is personally right for them or just a pain of penalty. I just want to ask if people do something because it requires them to do it or is it for their own will to do that duty or does their conscience or moral want what they are doing. Duty is important but what triggers here is the people’s action to that duty.

Integrative Question: 1.

What is the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties?

2.

What is a moral worth?

3.

What is duty?

4.

What is Right?

5.

How was the concept of Nowheresville related to duty?

Review Question: 1.

Nowheresville is a place mentioned by Feinberg. He describes Nowheresville as a place wherein people don’t have the rights to claim whatever damages they might encounter or in any part, there’s no right to complain or claim anything. Since there are no rights, there’s also lack of duty.

2.

The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties means duties entail people’s right and rights entail people’s duty. In this statement, I think duties and rights are partners. Without duty, there’s no right and the other way around. As Feinberg explains, he eventually says that it’s like a matter of Yes or No. That duty comes after the action. and rights can’t be distinguished when there’s a duty.

27

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

3.

Personal dessert means the individual deserves to get something good from others.

4.

Sovereign Right monopoly is defined the person who is said to deserve good things from others have the rights to have it as a due. In Nowheresville, this sovereign monopoly cannot be implied since no one there has the rights to claim.

28

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

29

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

30

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White

31