Microsoft Word - Compilation - Cmp

Contemporary Moral Problems IT-ETHICS BOOK REVIEW

Mark Justin B. Lumantao

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

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 1 James Rachels Egoisim and Moral Skepticism Library Reference : N/A Amazon: Quote: “Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. We assume, for example that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decide what actions to perform or rules to obey”. All people have morality in life. They know what is right and what is wrong, so that is morality is not like a law in where people should follow it not just to be ending up in jail or anything, but morality is something that people should consider like a natural instinct and people should not be thought about morality but people should always know about it as the natural instinct whether it is, good or bad, people should always know the difference among the 2. Learning Expectation: I expect to learn in this chapter is that who is James Rachel and what Egoisim and moral Skepticism is all about. Review: To start of James Rachels is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is an author of several books like best-known work “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” Among the subjects covered are ethical and simple subjectivism, emotivism, as well as ethical and psychological egoism, to name but a few. The text uses real-world examples to highlight points regarding complicated philosophical principles. In this chapter ethical theories were discussed, but the ethical theories was divided into 5 parts which are the “The different ethical theories were divided into five types namely: theory of the right, theory of the good, virtue theory, rights theory, and feminist theory.” Then the first ethical theory was, discussed by James Rachel, discussing the Ethical theory of Right. Then also in this chapter James Rachel, shared 2 assumptions about how people’s ordinary way of thinking is one is how people think about the wellness of others and how they care for other people and the second, is how people tend to be selfish and having lots of pride in the bodies. Then also defined in the chapter is about Psycholocgical Egosim, what is that? As said on the internet, that is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to

obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. It is a non-normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism. That is one type of egoism that is being defined by James Rachels. What I’ve learned: I’ve learned a lot in this chapter one is about James Rachels and 5 types of ethical theories and what is Psychological Egoism, the book is interesting and fun to read people can learn a lot in this book. Integrative Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is Psychological Egoisms? What are the 5 types of Ethical Theories? Who is James Rachel’s? What is Moral Skepticism? What is the famous book that James Rachel Wrote?

Review Answers:

Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality and are raised by the story? The Story of the Gyges is that he found a ring that can turn himself invisible and used his power to gain power over other people and wealth. The question raised in the story is that if there were a person in the same place as the Gyges will he do what the Gyges did, my answer is quit obvious because people would do the same thing as thte Gyges because that’s power and people would always want power by there side

Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological is how people will do or will they do just for the benefit of themselves and egoism is how people will do also for the benefit of themselves Rachel discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first arguments is that people would do what they want to do, then the second argument is how people will do for the benefit of others. What three common place confusion does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

The first confusion is the selfishness of people then the second is how people will do for the benefit of one and others, then the third confusion is the false confution.

State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels’ accept this argument? James Rachel doesn’t accept this argument because in ethical egoism man has the obligation to think only about himself. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? Because it is instincts among people, and also our attitude people can tend to hurt others if they are mad at other people and help people if they are pitiful about people, basically it is about instincts. Discussion Questions: Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly his answer? Yes Rachel answered it there the explanation of the moral skeptics and what is psychological , and moral ethics. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know? Yes Genuine egoist are rare because people now are commonly thinking only about them selves, It is a fact that people can only care about others than themselves because it is in the instincts to help other people. 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? It is okey to think about others, but people should always think first about themselves not just the benefits of others because sometimes your self benefits should always comes first.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS

Book review: Chapter 2 - Ethical Theories (John Arthur – Religion, Morality, and Conscience Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: ”Morality is social” Morality is very social because morality is tend to focus on social people and in what is right and wrong because right and wrong focuses on people for example, what is the right and wrong if you do this to people and not just for yourself with morality is for the social welfare of people and what you can do for people whether it is right and wrong. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation in the chapter is that I would learn what is right and wrong, for the social, and also to learn more about morality and to widen my knowledge in morality, lastly for me to distinguish in my morality library what is right and wrong and more on for me to know about ethics. Review: This Chapter discusses about the different religion, morality and lastly conscience, to give emphasis about the there, first of all what is religion, sually encompasses a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality, then what is morality, in its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time." Then what is conscience, Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong. It leads to feelings of remorse when one does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when one's actions conform to our moral values. Then a brief description of who John Arthur is, John Arthur is a professor of philosophy and director of the program in Philosophy, Politics, and Law at Binghamton University. This chapter emphasizes about the religion of people and how people life with the different kinds of religion that they are having now in the world for example, Christianity is a religion Muslin, Buddhism, there are many kinds of religion now in the world but in thing is for sure that even though that there are lot of religion there is still one God to worship and that is where morality takes place and conscience because with

the different religion, different forms of orientation takes place because in different religions different forms of ethics are being though by people to there followers. What I’ve learned: I’ve learned a lot in this chapter one is about the religion and the different kinds of religion now in the world, second about morality and lastly about conscience of people, and the different forms of ethics that people teach to there followers by different religions. Integrative Questions: What is Religion? What is Conscience? What is Morality? Is there only 1 GOD? Who is John Arthur? Discussion Questions: According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different? Morality is the choice of people to do what is right and wrong while. Religion is the faith of one people to a certain GOD. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation? Because there different kinds of religion and also it purely depend on the person if he wishes to do what is right or what is wrong. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Because in religion people just teach you about GOD and faith, to gain moral knowledge one should base it from experience and what people think is about there instincts. What is divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?

The divine command theory is been explain by is there is no God then there will be no right and wrong, the reason why Arthur rejected this theory because even without a good people still have there instincts and still can distinguish what is right and what is wrong. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? Morality and religion is connected, by the teachings of there religions because as we know morality is what is good and bad and the part where religion takes place is only to teach the people, on is the good things. Dewey says that morality is social, what does this mean according to Arthur?

Morality is obviously for the social because morality, cannot be used if there are no people to practice it for.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 3 - Friedrich Nietzsche – Master and Slave Morality Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: “Corruption as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the emotions, called life is convulsed.” Corruption is commonly bought to people because of power because with power people tend to become greedy, so that is why corruption cannot be avoided with people who have power, and also it threatens to break out peoples instincts because with to much power people tend, to loose there instincts and doesn’t known what is right and wrong anymore, they just do things for there self satisfaction. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation is that who is Friedrich Nietzsche, and what is the difference in the master and slave morality and also, for me to know the ethics between corruption maybe in this chapter corruption is widely discussed about and I can learn more about the do’s and don’t in corruption Review: To start of whom is Friedrich Nietzsche, was a nineteenth-century German philosopher and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, using a distinctive German language style and displaying a fondness for metaphor and aphorism. Nietzsche's influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth have resulted in much commentary and interpretation, mostly in the continental tradition, and some analytic philosophy. The chapter talks about the master and slave morality, because the master and slave morality is like a mentality in where people that have power obviously becomes the master and people without power and even just ordinary people becomes the slaves, the mentally is common today in the 21st century so that is why that is fact, among people To know more about the master and slave morality, with the help of the internet mainly on google.com master moralities meaning is master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. Morality as such is sentiment. Then slave morality is Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention"

What I’ve learned: I’ve learned a lot in this chapter, between the mentality of master and slave, it can be a morality also, Integrative questions: What is master morality? What is Slave morality? Is corruption related to power? Is master and slave morality being done today in real life? Is power the reason of being greedy? Review Questions How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? A good and health society according to Nietzsche is the ability of people to grab there own power. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation? Violence and exploitation is needed to balance the chain of life and also need to create a healthy society Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality. Master-morality is when power has power over people, and slave morality is when people don’t have power among people. Explain the Will to Power. Will power is when one person, doesn’t give up on one thing and still has the power to finish what he started even if it is hard. 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? Those charges are not justifiable because, it is a democratic country and people are given the right to choose and to write what they want. 2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”? A creator of values is like a preacher in where he/she teach good and moral values among people and teach people what is right and what is bad.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 4 - : Mary Midgley – Moral Isolation Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: “to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer” The quote tells about what people are doing today is always trying to venture in places where people doesn’t even know where or even trying new things for them that they don’t normally do, and taking up risk for people that they don’t even know that there will be a chance of success or not. Learning Expectation: I expect to learn about moral isolation and the different theories behind and what to do, with my morality and also who is Mary Midgley and what is the influence that she given to the world in the form of morality and ethics. Review: To start of who is Mary Midgley, is an English moral philosopher. She was a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Newcastle University and is known for her work on religion, science, ethics and humankind's relationship with animals. She wrote her first book, Beast And Man: The Roots of Human Nature (1978), when she was in her fifties. It was followed by several others, including Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience (1981), Animals And Why They Matter (1983); Wickedness (1984); and The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality (1994). In this chapter it focuses about the criticism of people to other people, and there morality so that is why many people tend to fight over things that should be worth fighting for, one thing that is most criticized about is peoples morality and there religion because people are born to criticized, some people talk about muslims and how bad they are, and there GOD are obsolete that is an example of moral criticism, and also how people question other peoples moral activities in terms of there religion, and what is right and wrong for people. But in this chapter Mary argued that it is immoral to criticize anything because it is bad and maybe, people might end up just fighting so it is best for just people to shut up there mouth and not to talk about bad things to other people. What I’ve learned: I’ve learned that it is immoral to criticize other people especially about the religion and morality, another thing that I’ve learned is that to be friendly and not to talk about things that people might get hurt of or maybe start a fight among people, for the it is very wrong.

Integrative Questions: 1. What is moral isolation? 2. What is real moral skepticism? 3. Who is Mary Midgley? 4. Is moral really need in the society? 5. Is religion related to morality? Review Questions 1. What is “moral isolationism”? To put in lay mans terms moral isolationism is for people to learn not to talk about things that they don’t know about. 2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? Tsujigiri or in lay mans terms the crosscut, the reason why the tsugiri is custom to the japans because with the samurai’s there swords must be sharp enough to cut there someone in only one slash, it is a for there honor that there swords remains razor sharp. 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? Criticizing causes trouble among people especially among other religions. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? There moral beliefs there GOD, and there test of faith. Discussion Questions 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not? No because, it is a free country and Midgley should respect the other’s opinion. 2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer. Yes because, every culture there is an unfair or there is a small group always under it.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 5 - John Stuart Mill Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote:”The strength of Utilitarianism is that it firmly resists Corruption by possible irrational elements.” To start of what is Utilitarianism, based from the internet, with thanks to wikipedia.org Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome: put simply, the ends justify the means. Utility, the good to be maximised, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure, which lead to the talk of corruption, with corruption money is involved so that is why Utilitarianism is possible because people may tend to be overwhelmed with power and forget there integrity and more over they will be hungry for power. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation in this chapter, is I will learn more about utilitarianism and more of its meaning and where utilitarianism is taking in place here now in the society and also to know more about John Stuart Mill, and what more creations and more philosophy did he do, to know the world in place. Review: To start of in this chapter who is John Stuart Mill, British philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's. This part of the chapter discussed broadly about utilitarianism, this theory gives lots of benefits to people why is the because in utilitarianism, it brings happiness and balance to people, especially the majority, it is also stated that John said that the people who desired there own happiness will eventually be happy and with people who desire the happiness of other people it will still be vice versa. It is clear for all people that happiness is very well needed so tendency is that people always find ways to achieve there happiness that is the mentality of people today, because why would people choose or do things that will not make them happy that is idiotic to do and very non-sense.

What I’ve Learned I learned a lot about Utilitarianism and some information about John Stuart Mill, I learned that people should always find ways to make themselves happy, because happiness is the key to life live your life the way that make you happy, and also to live a life without regrets. Integrative Questions: Who is John Stuart Mill? What is Utilitarianism? Is corruption a part of Utilitarianism? Is Happiness a part of Utilitarianism? How do you measure Happiness? 1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing. The Principle of Utility is all about the Greatest Happiness of a person, it is all about getting happiness whether it’s for our own benefits or for others, but some actions does not give benefit to the doer but it give a negative effect to them. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of a swine? John Stuart Mill, said that the pleasure of a human being and a pig is the same, then everybody has the same benefit with the other. 3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? Mill said that higher pleasure can be obtained with very high happiness and do things that are so beneficiary to one person, lower pleasures are those happiness that are common to a day to day routine. 4. according to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? Happiness of the Majority and the happiness of the society must be considered. 5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility. Happiness is desirable by the many, then it has an end.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 1 James Rachels Egoisim and Moral Skepticism Library Reference : N/A Amazon: Quote: “Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. We assume, for example that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decide what actions to perform or rules to obey”. All people have morality in life. They know what is right and what is wrong, so that is morality is not like a law in where people should follow it not just to be ending up in jail or anything, but morality is something that people should consider like a natural instinct and people should not be thought about morality but people should always know about it as the natural instinct whether it is, good or bad, people should always know the difference among the 2. Learning Expectation: I expect to learn in this chapter is that who is James Rachel and what Egoisim and moral Skepticism is all about. Review: To start of James Rachels is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is an author of several books like best-known work “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” Among the subjects covered are ethical and simple subjectivism, emotivism, as well as ethical and psychological egoism, to name but a few. The text uses real-world examples to highlight points regarding complicated philosophical principles. In this chapter ethical theories were discussed, but the ethical theories was divided into 5 parts which are the “The different ethical theories were divided into five types namely: theory of the right, theory of the good, virtue theory, rights theory, and feminist theory.” Then the first ethical theory was, discussed by James Rachel, discussing the Ethical theory of Right. Then also in this chapter James Rachel, shared 2 assumptions about how people’s ordinary way of thinking is one is how people think about the wellness of others and how they care for other people and the second, is how people tend to be selfish and having lots of pride in the bodies. Then also defined in the chapter is about Psycholocgical Egosim, what is that? As said on the internet, that is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. It is a non-normative view, since it only

makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism. That is one type of egoism that is being defined by James Rachels. What I’ve learned: I’ve learned a lot in this chapter one is about James Rachels and 5 types of ethical theories and what is Psychological Egoism, the book is interesting and fun to read people can learn a lot in this book. Integrative Questions: 6. What is Psychological Egoisms? 7. What are the 5 types of Ethical Theories? 8. Who is James Rachel’s? 9. What is Moral Skepticism? 10. What is the famous book that James Rachel Wrote? Review Answers:

Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality and are raised by the story? The Story of the Gyges is that he found a ring that can turn himself invisible and used his power to gain power over other people and wealth. The question raised in the story is that if there were a person in the same place as the Gyges will he do what the Gyges did, my answer is quit obvious because people would do the same thing as thte Gyges because that’s power and people would always want power by there side

Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological is how people will do or will they do just for the benefit of themselves and egoism is how people will do also for the benefit of themselves Rachel discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first arguments is that people would do what they want to do, then the second argument is how people will do for the benefit of others. What three common place confusion does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

The first confusion is the selfishness of people then the second is how people will do for the benefit of one and others, then the third confusion is the false confution.

State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels’ accept this argument? James Rachel doesn’t accept this argument because in ethical egoism man has the obligation to think only about himself. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? Because it is instincts among people, and also our attitude people can tend to hurt others if they are mad at other people and help people if they are pitiful about people, basically it is about instincts. Discussion Questions: Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly his answer? Yes Rachel answered it there the explanation of the moral skeptics and what is psychological , and moral ethics. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know? Yes Genuine egoist are rare because people now are commonly thinking only about them selves, It is a fact that people can only care about others than themselves because it is in the instincts to help other people. 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? It is okey to think about others, but people should always think first about themselves not just the benefits of others because sometimes your self benefits should always comes first.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 6 - Immanuel Kant Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: :”it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification except a good will.” The quote is saying that a good will is easy to get, because now in the society people are trained to help one another, egoist people are hard to find now in the society so that is why good will is easy to find, and also to get anything in the world is hard to get if you are alone, as we said no man is an island, so that is why people need other peoples help to gain there status. Learning Expectation: My Learning expectation in this chapter is to learn about Immanuel Kant, then to know about his works in the ethics industry, then to learn about the different ethical theories then to know about the difference between the different theories lastly to learn about categorical imperative. Review:

To start of with the chapter who is Immanuel Kant? With the help of the internet stated that Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Kongsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment. Kant created a new widespread perspective in philosophy which is influencing enlightened philosophy until the 21st Century. He published important works of epistemology as also scripts in coherence to religion, law and history. His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology. Then the topic in his essay in the book contemporary moral problems was The Categorical Imperative according to Immanuel Kant is a supreme rule where our moral duties can be derived. Immanuel Kant expressed great disapproval with Utilitarianism and this is why he devised the Categorical Imperative which according to him will correct the shortcomings of Utilitarianism.

What I’ve learned: I’ve learned a lot in this chapter, especially about Immanuel Kant, then about the different ethical theories then, the difference between them, also with Categorical Imperative.

Integrative Questions: Who is Immanuel Kant? What is Categorical Imperative? What are the different ethical theories? What is the universal law? What give you happiness? 1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will. It is the will to do good. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperative it requires an action that is given in a situation, while categorical imperative is people should do there responsibilities. 3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." It is the universal law where people can do well to other people 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it. “The end justifies the mean” It mean that the end will always be the basis for the mean.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 7 – Aristotle Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: Each man judges well the things he knows” It is automatic because people always know and how to criticize things that he know because he had an experience on that certain scenario. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation in this chapter is to learn about Aristotle’s happiness and virtues also to learn about how Aristotle learned and interpreted Happiness and Virtues. Review:

To start of with the Chapter, who is Aristotle, stated in the internet, that Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics. Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by modern physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were only confirmed to be accurate in the nineteenth century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which were incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic. In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the Middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially Eastern Orthodox theology, and the scholastic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. The topics discussed in this chapter were happiness and virtue. According to Aristotle happiness is not pleasure or wealth but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Pleasure will only bring happiness for a short period but its consequence will last longer.

What I’ve learned: I learned about Aristotle’s interpretation of Happiness and Virtue and the meaning of it help people gain their own happiness. Integrative Questions: Who is Aristotle? Who is Aristotle’s Teacher? What is Happiness? What is Virtue? How to measure Happiness? Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 8 - Joel Feinberg Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: “The idea of desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginnings by now” The quote is saying that the dessert as we know has good reasons but far from it is the beginning of everything in life because in the dessert you will find nothing but sand, to tendency is if a people started in the dessert his happiness will be great if he went from zero to hero or from rags to riches. Learning Expectation: My learning Expectation is to learn about Joel Feinberg, then to learn his perception about ethics also to learn about the nature and value of rights of people then I like to learn about the rights for the society, and for people to fight for there rights. Review:

Now to start of with the chapter is who is Joel Fienberg, with the help of the internet especially with www.wikepedia.com I found out that Joel Fienberg was an American political and social philosopher. He is known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state. Feinberg helped in shaping the American legal landscape. Feinberg studied at the University of Michigan, writing his dissertation on the philosophy of the Harvard professor Ralph Barton Perry under the supervision of Charles Stevenson. He taught at Brown University, Princeton University, UCLA and Rockefeller University, and at the University of Arizona, where he retired in 1994 as Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law.

Feinberg was internationally distinguished for his research in moral, social and legal philosophy. His major four volume work, The Moral Limits of Criminal Law, was published between 1984 and 1988. Feinberg held many major fellowships during his career and lectured by invitation at universities around the world. He was an esteemed and highly successful teacher, and many of his students are now prominent scholars and professors at universities across the country. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about ethics. In this essay Joel Feinberg wants to demonstrate or show how important rights are in connection with morality.

What I’ve learned: I learned in this chapter is about Joel Feinberg, then the rights of the society, and how people can do there rights then to practice there freedom. Integrative Questions: Who is Joel Fienberg? What is Nowheresville? How many are the rights of people? Do people can use there rights anytime? Is there really freedom? 1. Describe Nowheresville. How this world different from our world? It is a world without anyrights. 2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine? Feinberg’s answer is YES. 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? Personal Desert means when a person is granted sometime where he worked so hard at it. 4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? It means the people’s rights or some of there rights will be controlled by the government. 5. What are claim rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? Claim rights are rights, where people can have or imborn with them, in short it is the peoples rights for everything.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 9 - Ronald Dworkin Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them” It is not wrong to interfere with other people if they are doing something because people can be a guide to other people why is that, what if the person is doing something wrong and you saw it, mainly you will have to correct what the guy is doing, even dough they have the right to do something that they want, it is still okay for people to interface with people especially if they are doing something wrong. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation is that for me to learn about Ronald Dworkin, and also to learn about the influences that he did in the world of philosophy, and also for me to learn about the rights of people to do something that they want and also the limitations of a person in where he can do his rights, and let people interfere with them. Review: To start of with the review first of all who is Ronald Dworkin, with the help of the internet, I was able to know who Ronald Dworkin, so as said on the internet, Dworkin, is an American legal philosopher, currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law, and former professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford. He is known for his contributions to legal philosophy and political philosophy. His theory of law as integrity is one of the leading contemporary views of the nature of law. Dworkin also tough about the Law as Rule and principle, then the positive and negative liberty, In this chapter also Dworkin argued with other people that it is wrong it interfere with other people because it is their right to do things that they basically want. Then also Dworkin talk also about the government and how the government runs it city, for example when a government runs it’s country in a bad way for example harshly so mandatory no respect tendency people will use there rights as human beings to do want they want to do to correct the problem within the government. While if the government runs its country with respect to the people within it, tendency the people will just follow its leaders with out the wining of a pig and leading to revolution.

What I’ve learned: I’ve learned in this chapter is about the backround of Ronald Dworkin and his perspective about human rights and the rights of each and every people involved, and also to take our rights seriously when talking to people, especially the peoples rights. Integrative Questions: Who is Ronald Dworkin What are human rights? What are Peoples Rights? Is the government responsible in creating human rights? Do people have the human rights inborn on them? 1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the USA Constitution? If people do it with the right common sense, the rights with sense are the rights that are inborn to people. 2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights. Legal rights are rights created by the government, while moral rights are rights that are created by the church or by GOD. 3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive? First Model is about balance right of people to the society, while the other is more splendid. 4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights? The 2 most important ideas are the Majority and the Minority.

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 10: John Rawls Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all” Injustice is obviously does not benefit the majority in fact no body benefits from it, because people cannot survive injustice, I mean all people cannot survive it for example the injustice in court hearings, the injustice of police to people Learning Expectation: My learning expectation is to learn who John Rawls unlike the other chapters, this chapter talks about justice, and injustice between law, and to justify the injustice between the human rights. Review:

To start of in this chapter first I would explain who John Rawls is, based from the information given to me by the internet, when I used google.com the information that, came up was John Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. Rawls received the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself." John Rawls just wants in this part of the chapter is equality among people and how people, will react with the justice being given to them fairly right, also discussed in the part of the chapter is the 2 theories of the principle of justice, one is about equal basic liberties and the other is about the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. Then also discussed in the chapter is, the injustice of people to other people, in terms of police, judges and many more people inside the government that leads to injustice of people, which will always to unjust imprisonment of people without anybody knowing that they are right or innocent which is against ethics. What I’ve learned: I learned in this chapter about the injustice of people to other people and also the people within the government, the I also learned about John Rawls and his influence

with the people, with his works, that are moral and lets the people know what is going on in the society. Integrative Questions: Who is John Rawls? What is Injustice? What is Justice to you? How can you say that it is fair? What is Moral Justice? Review Questions: 1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position. Rawls original position talks about the rights of people to have equal justice 2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice. Equality must be given to people/ 3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed? Inequality is given to people Discussion Questions: 1. 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. Liberties must be served to people

Mark Justin B. Lumantao BS-IS/ IT-ETHICS Book review: Chapter 11 - Annette Baier Library Reference: N/A Amazon: N/A Quote: The cold jealous virtue of justice” The quote talks about the virtue of justice, it says that people tend to be jealous to other people if they have proper justice, but intends to have that person have the injustice that they deserved. Learning Expectation: My learning expectation in this chapter is to learn effective justice and learn the do’s and don’ts in justice and how to avoid in just to people. Especially for my self then also to learn about Annatte Baier Review:

To start with the review who is Annatte Baier. Based on the internet that I’ve researched about her Annatte Baier is a well-known moral philosopher and Hume scholar, focusing in particular on Hume's moral psychology. For most of her career she taught in the philosophy department at the University of Pittsburgh, having moved there from Carnegie Mellon University. She retired to her native Dunedin, New Zealand, where she graduated from the University of Otago. She is also well known for her contributions to feminist philosophy and to the philosophy of mind, where she was strongly influenced by her former colleague, Wilfrid Sellars. Her husband is the philosopher Kurt Baier. She is a former President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, an office reserved for the elite of her profession. Baier received an honorary Doctor of Literature from the University of Otago in 1999. In October 2007, Baier was ranked 72nd in a list of "Top 100 living geniuses" compiled by The Daily Telegraph. Baier's approach to ethics is that women and men make their decisions about right and wrong based on different value systems: men take their moral decisions according to an idea of justice, while women are motivated by a sense of trust or caring. The history of philosophy having been overwhelmingly compiled by men, she suggests, leads to a body of thought which apparently ignores the role of nurture and trust in human philosophy. What I’ve learned: I learn how justice works and how it can be helpful to other people. And also I learn the influence of Annatte Baier. And her philosophy.