Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: James Rachels – Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Quote:

But suppose we were to concede, for the sake of the argument, that all voluntary action is motivated by the agent’s wants, or at least that Smith is so motivated. Even if this were granted, it would not follow that Smith is acting selfishly or from self-interest.

What I expect to learn:

To know more about Egoism and Moral Scepticism aside from its obvious definition

Review:          

Egoism’s concept was well explained by James Rachel considering he included some opposing ideas to back up his explanations. Although both concepts are well described, I still had confusions between the two but I won’t elaborate on them considering that there are certain number of pages to follow.

We all here about ego, of course you did, everyone is familiar with the term especially girls. Why? Because we all know we have a strong ego and we all know that the only one that beats that is a man’s ego. We hear the word “ego” often but how come we can’t really define it? How come on way or another, we still lack the explanation to define it to people who never heard of it. The answer would be similar to why it’s so hard to define life, love or other things intangible, is that it cannot be seen by anyone but it is a characteristic that we contain. Even though we try hard to keep our true selves to not exude egoism which means considering oneself first before others and defending your side which means it is really likely to become a unilateral attribute rather than bilateral which means both sides approve or talked or are involved in a specific situation. I know it is hard but can we at least try for the sake of others and for the sake of those who are very close to us because we will have the tendency to apply skepticism to them without realizing we do and may even become a standard of living for us.

What I learned:

·         Ordinary thinking of morality

·         Assumptions under attack by moral sceptics

·         Psychological scepticism

·         Ethical egoism

·         The moral institution of life

·         The agent is merely doing what he wants to do

·         Under an obligation

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What do you mean by ordinary thinking of morality?

2.    What are moral sceptics?

3.    What is psychological scepticism?

4.    What is ethical egoism?

5.    What is an obligation?

Review Questions:        

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

·         The issue about doing something and avoiding getting caught might be one of the morality issues that I had to over think because there will be a question of either doing something to help others or not doing a thing about it for the sake of respect.

 

2.    Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

·         Psychological egoism holds that all human actions are self-interested and ethical egoism holds that those actions ought to be self-interested.

 

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

·         He concludes that both are false and confused but he is unable to refute ethical egoism.

 

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

·         Selfishness and self-interest, and one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

 

5.    State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument?

·         Because he tried to connect the two different type of ethical egoism and tried to be brief with it.

 

6.    According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?

·         Egoist will not be happy with that because they see being helpful as a confusion between self-interest and selfishness.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?

·         Yes, he did and his answer would be yes, we ought to be moral not for ourselves but for others.

 

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

·         No it is not, they are just not that aware of it.

 

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

·         It is somewhat immoral knowing that we should also take care of ourselves because we should leave something for us, not only to others.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: John Arthur – Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Quote:

One possible role which religion might play in morality relates to motives people have. Religion, it is often said, is necessary so that people will DO right. Typically, the argument begins with the important point that doing what is right often has costs:  refusing to shoplift or cheat can mean people go without some good or fail a test; returning a billfold means they don’t get the contents. Religion is therefore said to be necessary in that it provides motivation to do the right thing. God rewards those who follow His command by providing for them a place in heaven or by ensuring that they prosper and are happy on earth.

What I expect to learn:

To be aware of how religion, morality and the conscience will be intertwined in this subchapter

Review:          

When Donita Rose came to our class to discuss about her triumph as a VJ considering her confusions with religion and life beliefs, she said she does not believe in religion – and I agree. Why should we limit ourselves? Hey, I am not saying you should start going to different churches of different religions but what I am saying is that you should first think and analyze if you really do believe that there is someone out there that is so powerful that he can literally take our lives in just one blink, now, once you realize you do, then you have faith. I know it sounds almost as though I am advocating that you guys shouldn’t have a religion but that is not what I am trying to put out. I am trying to make you realize that religion means nothing if you don’t believe in God; that religion is nothing if you don’t want to talk to him; that religion is nothing if you don’t even heard His  name before; that religion is nothing if you don’t accredit your life to Him because at one point or the other, you will realize that you can’t just have a religion without knowing someone who is the strength, someone who can teach us how to live and someone who can be with us anytime, anywhere listening to our every word. Along with realization will be analysis of your morality because we all have different morality, different belief because of different upbringing.

What I learned:

·         Morality

·         Moral code tends to evaluate

·         Society having a moral code

·         God’s action in our history

·         Religion

·         Religious motivation and guidance

·         The divine command theory

·         Morality social

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is the connection of religious morals with societal morals?

2.    What do you mean by morality intertwined with religion?

3.    Is it possible to be moral even without believing in religion? Explain

4.    What type of dependence to us built with morality?

5.    What if we get caught? Should we do moral things without considering that?

Review Questions:        

1.    According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?

·         The practices of morality and religion are importantly different. One involves our attitude toward various forms of behaviours, typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligation. The other, religion, typically involves prayers, worships, beliefs, beliefs about the supernatural, intuition forms, and authoritative texts.

 

2.    Why is religion necessary for moral motivation?

·         Behaving fairly and treating others well is more important than whatever we might gain from stealing or cheating, let alone seriously harming another person. So it seems clear that many motives for doings the right thing have nothing whatsoever with religion

 

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

·         There seem to be no reason to suppose that people can’t be moral yet irreligious at the same time.

 

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

·         The divine command theory would mean that God has the same sort of of relation to moral law as a legislature has to statures it enacts. Without God’s commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statures. He didn’t agree because it is possible that morality does not have any foundation or basis at all, so that its claims should be ignored in favour of whatever serves our own self-interest.

 

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

·         Through morality and divine commands.

 

 

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

·         The relationship is not, however, one-sided: morality has also influenced religion, as the current debate within the Catholic Church over the role of the women, abortion and other social issues shown. In reality then, it seems that clear that the practices of morality and religion have historically each exerted an influenced on the other.

Discussion Questions:   

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

·         He didn’t because he just explained his thoughts about the command theory and honestly I agree with his ideas and defends because it really doesn’t really explain those important points given by the command theory with the explanations given.

 

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

·         By caring to other people and by following a certain belief.

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

·         There is an important sense that in which morality not only can be taught but must be. Besides early moral training, moral thinking depends on pur ability to imagine others’ reactions and to imaginatively put ourselves into their shoes.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Friedrich Nietzche – Master and Slave Morality

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 – is something radically different according to the organisation which it manifests itself. When, for instance, aristocracy like the France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption

What I expect to learn:

To know why is there even a slave and master morality

Review:          

I did not really thought that there is such types of morality – slave and master morality – because one, I don’t get it and two, it is something I have never heard of before. The first thing I thought of when I read the title of this subchapter is how can this be explained because it is obvious enough to know what slave and master means but as a morality, now that is really something you don’t hear every day. Anyway, as I read through the chapter, I realized something, that it is the obvious meaning or slave and master intertwined with the definition of morality. It is a way of thinking back then there has to be a slave and a master and that both cannot meet because of their difference in worlds. I only saw this in movies because I was lucky enough to be born way past the era of Spanish and Japanese reign here in the Philippines – but am I really lucky to have missed that? – which makes me thankful because I scanned through my junior high school history book and it made me realize that most Filipinos are slaves or those deprived by the goods they are supposed to have particularly education. Only minority of Filipinos are coined as elites which are people who are rich enough or those who are wealthy enough to buy almost every possible service possible and as for the majority of Filipinos, some became slaves, some became deprived of land, and some even died.

What I learned:

·         Will to power

·         Will to life

·         Pathos of distance

·         Evaluation of the type of man

·         Supermoral sense

·         Self-surmouning of a man

·         The strength of the desire of power

·         Significance and highest justification of corruption

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is corruption?

2.    What is the will to power?

3.    What is the will to life? How is it similar to will to power?

4.    What do you mean by a self-surmouning man?

5.    Enumerate and define the two different types of morality.

Review Questions:        

1.    How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

·         Nietzche argues that a healthy society should allow superior individuals should exercise their “will to power” their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

 

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

·         These are civilisations and the revolution of power within the society.

 

3.    Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.

·         It is the rulers who determine the conception “good” it is the exalted, proud disposition which is regarded as the distinguishing feature and that which determines the order of rank. The ability and the obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge – both only within the circle of individuals – artfulness in retaliation, raffinement of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies: all there are typical characteristics of the noble morality which has been pointed out as modern ideas and otherwise with the second type of morality – slave-morality.

 

4.    Explain the Will to Power.

·         It is the drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

 

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?

·         Yes it was justified because just reading through his writings made me realize how strongly he stands for achieving power.

 

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

·         It means to be the one who initiates the actual realization and consideration of one man’s values.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Mary Midgley – Trying Out One’s New Sword

Quote:

Now it would really be odd if homo sapiens had really got himself into a position as bad as this – a position where his main evolutionary asset, his brain, was so little use to him. None of us is going to accept this skeptical diagnosis. We cannot do so, because our involvement with moral isolationism does not flow from apathy, but from a rather acute concern about human hypocrisy and other forms of wickedness. But this is itself a moral judgment.

What I expect to learn:

To know what it means to “try out one’s new sword”

Review:          

Trying out one’s new sword did not make sense to me because of another similar sentence that might mean differently. In the latter part, I came to realize that this is a subchapter dedicated to a whole study on Japanese culture particularly tsujigiri which is literally trying out a new sword to another man’s body. Of course I was surprised that such morbid practice had been a part of a country’s culture or belief because a part of tsujigiri is that once the man whom the new sword will be tried to by the samurai gets physically and literally chopped in half from the shoulders to the other side, then he is a humiliation for his family. Now that is new! There are a lot of things we can do to aid us with the isolation of cultures form our culture like reading about from an encyclopedia, surfing it through the internet which, as we all know, the greatest possible library there is made by man, and we can always go to the place and see, respect, and practice the culture ourselves. I have never been to a place wherein loads of people try out something new because here in the Philippines, tribal practices are only available in the smallest and most hidden part of the country that may even be never known to any man’s existence. We could not condemn oppression and insolence if we thought that our condemnations were just a trivial local quirk of our own culture. We could still less do it if we tried to stop judging altogether.

What I learned:

·         Moral isolationism

·         Difference in cultures

·         Non-Christian options for cultures

·         Ideals like discipline and devotions

·         Isolation barriers

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is isolationism?

2.    How can it be applied to our morality?

3.    What is tsujigiri?

4.    What does Midgley stands for?

5.    Explain his side with cultures being intertwined in some way.

Review Questions:        

1.    What is “moral isolationism”?

·         The view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand.

 

2.    Explain the Japanese customer of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?

·         Does the isolating barrier work both ways?

·         Are people in other cultures equally enable to criticize us?

 

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

·         It falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of many influences

 

4.    What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?

·         We can’t criticize other cultures without being a part of it in the first place.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?

·         Yes it is because they both have different points of view.

 

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

·         No I don’t because I believe that it is real that cultures that we have back then and even now are all separate from each other and unmixed.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism

Quote:

“It has been remarked, that questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term.”

What I expect to learn:

To learn about utilitarianism

Review:          

Utility is such a broad word but once it is utilitarianism, all it exudes is power over another man. I’ve never experienced such or at least I didn’t know about it yet but I did have a friend that had an encounter with another person that applied such to him which he did not realize before until I explained it to him. So my friend is courting this girl and I with what he’s feeling, he will do everything and the girl knows about it so what she did is that she manipulated my good and dead in love friend to buy her expensive stuff – gold digger! – but my friend gave in to her every demand.  Of course at first it was okay for me and for my other friends because when guys give gifts, it really means they like  you and they want to see you happy but the thing is, it went on to six months and no, she didn’t like her or at least let him drive her home. I still did not think she was using him or anything but when a friend of mine told me that the girl my friend is courting is already committed for three whole years, wow! Then I was shocked and went to his house that moment just to tell him to slap the girl because of what she did to him. After that incident, the same friend that knew about her relationship told us that she had a lot of suitors and still let them court her even when she’ s in a relationship because she is fond of getting gifts for it.

What I learned:

·         Utilitarianism

·         Theory of morality

·         The greatest happiness principle

·         The greatest amount of happiness all together

·         The principle of utility

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is utilitarianism?

2.    Explain utilitarianism.

3.    What is the theory of morality?

4.    Explain how happiness was explained and prioritized by the author.

5.    What is the Greatest Happiness Principle?

Review Questions:        

1.    State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such a as lying and stealing.

·         Also known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle”

·         All other things are desirable is an exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, being the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their self consciousness.

 

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

·         He just defended himself again and again pointing out his point of view.

 

3.    How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

·         By the pleasure it actually brings and how we prioritize things

 

4.    According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

·         Our own and the others’

 

5.    Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.

·         Happiness might be achieved from others

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?

·         No it isn’t, it is contentment and realization of contentment being present in life.

 

2.    Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones?

·         No because we all have different perspective and prioritization of things and people.

 

3.    Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?

·         I don’t think so.

 

4.    Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

·         Yes I actually do because he lacked the explanations and the back up his beliefs.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: James Rachels – The Debate Over Utilitarianism

Quote:

The idea that happiness is the one ultimate good (and happiness the one ultimate evil) is known as Hedonism. Hedonism is perennially populat theory that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. It has always been an attractive theory because of its beautiful simplicity and because it expresses the intuitively plausible notion that things are good or bad only on account of the way  they make us feel.

What I expect to learn:

To hopefully participate in the debate over utilitarianism by reading through this chapter

Review:          

As I was saying before, if you guys didn’t remember my story, let me just repeat it here to exemplify my explanation of utilitarianism.  My cute little tale was my friend is courting this girl and with the strength of what he’s feeling, it is quite obvious that he will do everything and the girl knows about it so what she did is that she abused my friend’s emotions and manipulated my good and dead in love friend to buy her expensive stuff but my friend gave in to her every whim.  Because he’s so in love at first it was okay for me and for my other friends because when guys give gifts, it really means they like  you and they want to see you happy but the thing is, it went on to six months and no, she didn’t like him or at least let him drive her home. I still did not think she was using him or anything but when a friend of mine told me that the girl my friend is courting is already committed for three whole years then I get really mad at her so then I was shocked and went to his house that moment just to tell him to slap the girl because of what she did to him. After that incident, the same friend that knew about her relationship told us that she had a lot of suitors and still let them court her even when she’ s in a relationship because she is fond of getting gifts for it. So the concept of utility would mean gaining benefit from others. A lot of people object to this idea – so am I – but some still believes it is a way to achieve happiness.

What I learned:

·         Main objections to utilitarianism

·         Defenders’ side about utilitarianism

·         Utilitarian doctrine

·         Utilitarian standard

·         Role of happiness in our lives

·         Consequences that comes with happiness

·         Justice

·         Rights

·         Backward-looking reasons

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is utilitarian doctrine?

2.    What is standard of utilitarianism?

3.    What are right actions based on this chapter?

4.    State the ideas of happiness and explain each.

5.    Explain how happiness matters.

Review Questions:        

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

·         Justice

·         Rights

·         Backward-looking reasons

 

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

·         You think someone is your friend but really he ridicules you behind your back. No one ever tells you, so you never know.

 

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

·         They are unrealistic and do not describe situations that come up in the real world.

 

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

·         Rule-utilitarianism has no difficulty coping with the three antiutilitarian arguments. Act-utilitarian, faced with the situation described, would be tempted to bear false witness against the innocent man because the consequences of that particular act would be good.

 

5.    What is the third line of defense?

·         It points out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer

·         No because you need to consider a lot of things.

 

2.    A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

·         Not only humans but the things presented to us naturally by God.

 

3.    Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

·         Yes.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Immanuel Kant – The Categorical Imperative

Quote:

It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgment, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt.

What I expect to learn:

To know the meaning of categorical imperative

Review:          

So what is a good will? No it is not the bookstore but it is something we feel like doing that we believe will help others but the chapter said otherwise.

Of course, we are human beings who are known to have good will as a personal conviction. Here’s a part of the chapter that explained it quite well. It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgment, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or  courage resolution, and constancy of purposes, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good which for this reason has the term “character” applied to its peculiar quality. I know acting for someone and desiring good to them is not bad but expecting something to get back from doing such thing is something intolerable. It is selfish to expect something in return just for doing something good to someone else which I think should have been the focus of the whole chapter. I also found confusion with the idea of people trying to become someone they are not by providing food and shelter to others just having in the back of their minds that more will be given back to them by the great Being that provided us life. It is selfish because you expect something in return but Kant also explained a side where in it is meant to be selfish because if it is not, then you would not achieve happiness through good will.

What I learned:

·         The good will

·         The gifts of fortune

·         The good will and its results

·         The good will and duty

·         The motive of duty

·         The categorical imperative

·         The formula of the end itself

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is the good will?

2.    What are the gifts of fortune?

3.    What are the results of good will?

4.    State the duties of good will.

5.    What are the motives of duty?

Review Questions:        

1.    Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

·         It is the only thing possible to conceive in this world.

 

2.    Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

·         Hypothetical imperative is not knowing beforehand what will contain until its condition is given but if it is a categorical imperative, you’ll know instantly what it contains.

 

3.    State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universe law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

·         He just stated examples to back up his ideas

 

4.    State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and ends). And explain it.

·         We are not merely subjective ends whose existence as an object of our actions has a value for us: they are objective ends – that is, things whose existence is in itself an end, and indeed an end such that in its place we can put no other end to which they should serve simply as means.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

·         I prefer not to choose sides because I lack the knowledge and experience for it yet.

 

2.    Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

·         I agree.

 

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

·         Yes it is.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Aristotle – Happiness and Virtue

Quote:

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in subject is a good judge of that subject.

What I expect to learn:

To know about happiness and virtue

Review:          

Being a truly happy person, based on Aristotle's theory, is becoming a man that lives his true purpose in life with good actions. It is somewhat similar to placing a word "good" in a man's function in life. It is trying to look for one's purpose without regrets. It is hard enough but excluding the bad and practicing the good will lead one man to happiness which is opposed to what we believe in nowadays that once we embrace pleasure, whether in wealth or in health, we embrace happiness. Aristotle made it clear that money or wealth itself is not the means for happiness because it is just physical means for something else which can be abused by nature.  Virtue and happiness were also identified by some as one and in harmony. Relating it to virtue, happiness is found when something has been done for it. Similar to a man that is good and did something good which is why he is now known to be good. As for pleasure, happiness does exist but still becoming consistent to the idea that it exists not in physical concept but within one's soul. That once the human soul found contentment through virtuous actions that triggers nature pleasant, then happiness will be achieved in life. If I were to consider my own personal point of view of happiness, I believe it is a set of mind. Everyone can be happy and contented in whatever they do even for those who commit sins because we all have different mind sets which are why we see things differently and seeing things differently means experiencing things differently as well.

What I learned:

·         Happiness and virtue

·         Pleasure

·         Moral virtue

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is happiness?

2.    What is virtue?

3.    What is pleasure?

4.    What is moral virtue?

5.    Can one man truly achieve happiness? How?

Review Questions:        

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

·         Happiness, based on Aristotle's theory, is becoming a man that lives his true purpose in life with good actions. It is somewhat similar to placing a word "good" in a man's function in life. Seeking one's purpose is hard enough but excluding the bad and practicing the good will lead one man to happiness which is opposed to what we believe in nowadays that once we embrace pleasure, whether in wealth or in health, we embrace happiness. Aristotle made it clear that money or wealth itself is not the means for happiness because it is just physical means for something else which can be abused by nature.  Virtue and happiness were also identified by some as one and in harmony. Relating it to virtue, happiness is found when something has been done for it. Similar to a man that is good and did something good which is why he is now known to be good. As for pleasure, happiness does exist but still becoming consistent to the idea that it exists not in physical concept but within one's soul. That once the human soul found contentment through virtuous actions that triggers nature pleasant, then happiness will be achieved in life.

 

2.    How does Aristotle explain moral virtue?

·      Aristotle stated that "moral virtue comes about as a result of habit" which makes sense considering that moral virtues do not exude in us by nature. It is the idea that once something is made to be habitually acting a specific way, it will act in that specific way even if much effort will be exerted just to try and alter it's habit. Aristotle even used a rock that, as we all know, goes downward once thrown as an example because that rock that goes downward every single time is made to be that way even with repetitive approach to make it go upward. Stating a brief definition and few examples made it clearer for me to grasp the idea of moral virtues, its difference with intellectual virtue and it's source by nature which we all should know by now.

 

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

·         It is truly possible for everyone to be happy ONLY if they realize that everything including their actions should be in the right amount. Aristotle even compared happiness or true happiness with an art that too little will seem to lack something and too much will seem to become exaggerated. People who seek contentment are those who will receive happiness. That once they act on becoming in between of too little and too much, they will find happiness without the guilt of becoming too greedy, too giving, too selfish, or too arrogant.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure?

·      Aristotle did characterize a life of pleasure was suitable for beasts because once we get used to a life that seem to give us almost everything we want in physical nature, we will seek it and we will eventually be blinded with all of it.

 

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

·      Based on what Aristotle stated that philosophers only seek those that are necessary in life. I don't agree to such a strong belief because no man, philosopher or not, can predict how everyone else handle their life even with or without the virtuous that a good man require.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Joel Feinberg – The Nature and Value of Rights

Quote:

This picture is pleasant as it is in some respects, would have hardly satisfied.

What I expect to learn:

To know the nature and value of rights

Review:          

We all know what duty is but if you still don’t, here is the definition of duty from our good friend Wikipedia: Duty (from "due," that which is owing, O. Fr. deu, did, past participle of devoir; Lat. debere, debitum; cf. "debt") is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest. As mentioned, it is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something which means it is intertwined and directly connected to our own morals. There can never be a duty if we don’t directly connect it to what we believe in. Like mentioned in our BUSLAW class, when you owe something to someone, you need to give it back to him in any way possible because it is the right thing to do or else you will be facing some serious cases that you wouldn’t want to deal with in the first place for your future and possibly, for your future family that will carry the burden you made for them and we don’t want that right? We would never want that.

What I learned:

·         Required by duty

·         Nature and value of rights

·         Doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties

Integrative Questions:  

1.    Define duty.

2.    What is required by duty?

3.    What is the Doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties?

4.    Explain the right to complain.

5.    What is the sovereign monopoly of rights?

Review Questions:        

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

·         No one has NO rights.

 

2.    Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?

·         This is the doctrine that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights, need concern us here. He’s answer is that in a sense, it is correct and in a sense, it isn’t.

 

3.    How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville?

·         It will work by providing rights to the people

 

4.    Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg?

·         It will work any place but it isn’t advisable.

 

5.    What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

·         Only one right because everyone should have at least one.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?

·         No he didn’t  because at first, I got really confused with what he stated and became tough for me to understand him right off the bat.

 

2.    Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

·         I can’t think of any.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Ronald Dworkin - Taking Rights Seriously

Quote:

Conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. They disagree, when they do, over the different issue of what the State’s response should be. Both parties do think that sometimes the State should prosecute. But this is not inconsistent with the proposition that the man prosecuted did the right thing breaking the law.

What I expect to learn:

To take rights seriously

Review:          

It is revolutionary when we think of the rights of others because we always think about those rallies you see almost every day on the news and even on the streets and you always remember those people who took a stand for the life and happiness, and rights of others. As noble as it is, taking our rights seriously is very essential to us as a human being who deserves to achieve happiness. But what is a right? Let me clear its definition. Based from Wikipedia, Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. Rights are of vital importance in theories of justice and deontological ethics. Many contemporary notions of rights are universalist and egalitarian, with equal rights granted to all people. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings to hold absolute power over their subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves. Conversely, modern conceptions of rights often emphasize liberty as among the most important of rights, though conceptions of liberty frequently differ. The specific enumeration of rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly across space and time, and in many cases, the view of rights held by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict with the view of rights held by another group. At present the question of who has what rights is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations (in the case of legal rights) or a particular philosophical theory (in the case of natural rights).

What I learned:

·         The rights of citizens

·         Rights and the right to break the law

·         Taking rights seriously

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What are the rights of citizens?

2.    What do you mean by the right to break the law?

3.    What are controversial rights?

4.    Why do we need to take our rights seriously?

5.    Do we need to consider the common good when thinking of our rights?

Review Questions:        

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

·         The debate does not include the issue of whether citizens have some moral rights against their government. It seems accepted on all sides that they do. Conventional lawyers and politicians take it as a point of pride that our legal system recognizes, for example, individual rights of free speech, equality, and due process. They based their claim that the law deserves respect.

 

2.    Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are not moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.

·         Not all legal rights or even constitutional rights reporesent moral rights against the government. We have the constitutional right to vote again on the basis of a judgment that this would be for the general good. Those constitutional rights that we call fundamental like the right of free speech, are supposed to represent rights against the Government in the strong sense.

 

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

·         Legal and constitutional

 

4.    According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

·         Justification of those rights

Discussion Questions:   

1.    Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?

·         Yes because we’re free to do so but that person has to consider that there will be consequences.

 

2.    Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?

·         Yes it is.

 

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

·         Yes he will.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: John Rawls – A Theory of Justice

Quote:

I shall maintain instead that the persons in the initial situation would choose two rather different principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities.

What I expect to learn:

To define the theory of justice

Review:          

There are different perspectives in form of justice. Justice, as said from Wikipedia, is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key features of society. Theories of justice vary greatly, but there is evidence that everyday views of justice can be reconciled with patterned moral preferences. In the same site, there is also different types of justice such as Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally-correct and fully deserved. Retribution also means prosperity, prosperity results in crime prevention. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things - wealth, power, reward, respect - between different people. A number of important questions surrounding justice have been fiercely debated over the course of western history: What is justice? What does it demand of individuals and societies? What is the proper distribution of wealth and resources in society: equal, meritocratic, according to status, or some other arrangement? There is a myriad of possible answers to these questions from divergent perspectives on the political and philosophical spectrum. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony, divine command, natural law, or human creation.

What I learned:

·         Main idea of justice

·         Theory of justice

·         Two principles of justice

·         Justice as fairness

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is the main idea of justice?

2.    Explain the theory of justice.

3.    Enumerate the two principles of justice

4.    Differentiate the two principles.

5.    What do you mean by justice as fairness?

Review Questions:        

1.    Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.

·         The guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest.

 

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

·         The first principle involves equal basic liberties.

 

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

·         The second principle concerns the arrangement of the social and economic inequalities.

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. 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?

·         Honestly, yes, in my point of view and definitely basing it with what’s going on how in my generation, it does mean that way.

 

2.    Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than give 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 it is possible especially f backed up with strong opinions.

 

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Annette Baier – The Need for More Than Justice

Quote:

It is easy to exaggerate the differences of view that exist, and I want to avoid that. The differences are as much emphasis as in substance, or we can say that they are differences in tone of voice. But these differences to do tend to make a difference in approaches to a wide range of topics not just in moral theory but in areas like medical ethics, where the discussion used to be conducted in terms of patients’ rights, of informed consent, and so on, but now tends to get conducted in an enlarged moral vocabulary.

What I expect to learn:

To know the need for more than justice

Review:          

We all seek the need for more justice. I see it every day. People trying to let other people listen to them, trying their best to be heard by everyone and allowing those people to become more and more vulnerable but at the same time stronger every minute they do.

Our voice and our ideas are as important to us as a human being who is why we fight for what we think should be right and what we know should be wrong. Fighting our need for more than justice is what we seek but what is beyond justice? That was explained in an interesting sense by Baier through straight forward comments and rejections of past ideologies which she believes not true or at least not applicable.

Here is what she stated: let me say quite clearly at this early point that there is little disagreement that justice is a social value of very great importance, and in justice an evil. Nor would those who have worked all theories of justice want to deny that other things matter besides justice. Rawls, for example, incorporates the value of freedom into his account of justice, so that denial of basic freedoms counts as injustice. Rawls, also leaves room for a wider theory of the right, of which the theory of justice is just a part. I do agree to her statement because there is more besides justice and it is not something we would expect to have every single day which is why we fight for it, it is something we seek therefore, we act on having it.

What I learned:

·         North American social and moral philosophy

·         The first virtue of social institutions

·         Counterculture

·         Justice perspective

·         Moral theory

·         Care perspective

Integrative Questions:  

1.    What is the North American social and moral philosophy?

2.    What is the first virtue of social institutions?

3.    What do you mean by counterculture?

4.    Explain the concept of justice perspective.

5.    Explain the moral theory.

Review Questions:        

1.    Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop?

·         Since the reality of interconnection is experienced by women as given rather than freely contracted, they arrive at an understanding of life that reflects the limits of autonomy and control.

 

2.    Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this theory?

·         The progress of affiliate relationship

·         The concept of identity expands to include the experience of interconnection

 

3.    Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are these differences?

·         The relationship between equals

·         The relative weight put to freedom of choice

·         The authority of intellect over emotions

 

4.    Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?

·         Because she does not support its concept.

Discussion Questions:   

1.    What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of our patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and right?

·         Yes it does replace the old values however, we never abandon the old values of justice, freedom and right.

 

2.    What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

·         I think Baier speaks without or with less proof. I don’t agree that it is not right to extend equal rights because we seek equality but of course there are restrictions.

 

3.    Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?

·         It is but there are some things you just can’t choose.