cmpreader

8/14/2019 CMPReader

1/53

Contemporary Moral Problems

Reader

BYFrida Shane V. Felisco

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Philippines License.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

2/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 1: James Rachels - Egoism andMoral Scepticism

Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

But this is because the questioner has included in his question the very answer wewould like to give: Why shouldnt you do actions that will harm others? Because, doing thoseactions would harm others. by James Rachels.

What I expect to learn:

I look forward to the discussion of psychological egoism and ethical egoism. I amintrigued of self-interest and selfishness topic. I want to know to what extent an action willprove that one is selfish or not.

Chapter Review:

To start, there are arguments in this chapter that I find very informative since eachhas strong points to argue. With this, I find myself in agree in all of them I cannot decidewhich side to take on. Generally, I enjoy reading this chapter. The topics are just interestingenough selfish, self-interest, and motives. I guess I am curious about these topics becausethey are not usually discussed thoroughly. The situation examples are very helpful to the

reader to understand more the concepts being discussed.

Anyway, the definition of psychological and ethical egoism is quite confusing at first.But, if one will try to really understand it, it is worth the information. Moving on, the storyabout the ring and how Rachels come up with a follow-up question about it is nice indeed the rogue and the man of virtue case.I really like the stand of this, quoting Rachels, What reason is there for him to continue beingmoral when it is clearly not to his own advantage to do so? Although, the question is in anegative form, the kind of thinking in raising that question is I think amazing.

This chapter has really focused their topic on how good or bad self-interest is and if it hassomething else to do with being selfish. The first argument, quoting Rachels, people never

voluntarily do anything except what they want to do is true for me. However, there areinstance wherein one must do an act because the situation asks for it, this can be the meanto an end that is mentioned in this chapter.

Looking at the second argument involving unselfishness producing self-satisfaction isshocking to read. It seems like any type of satisfaction whether it originates from good or badis still bad. Satisfaction brings maliciousness.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

3/53

I want to share the concept of object of a want, quoting Rachels, I am acting on mywants does not mean that I am acting selfishly; that depends on what it is that I want. I cansay that this is acceptable; the basis of selfishness can be measured to the very thing thatone wants. This could also refer to the hidden motives of a person. Motives can be selfish.

With regards to the three confusions, this part clears up the argument Rachels stated at thefirst page of this chapter. In here, he disapprove of psychological egoism, also, hedifferentiate a selfish behavior from self-interest. As for my opinion, I think that self-interestcan either be good and bad, while selfishness only exhibits the bad.

The concept of ethical egoist is a bit weird yet wise because the egoist will do the opposite ofwhat he/she wants so that other people will do what he/she really intends to do. The egoistcontradicts himself to achieve his/her goal. In connection with this, is the question-answer ofRachels, I actually find this question-answer funny and non-sense yet straight to the point orpractical. It works in a way that once one is asked of a question, the answer one should saymust be the same question itself only that it is translated to an answer form.

What I learned:

I learned about the different views about selfishness and self-interest has. I learnedthe idea of psychological egoism and ethical egoism. The same thing I am introduced togenuine egoist. Lastly, I learned about the reasons we need to consider when judging an act,if it falls into selfishness already,

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism?2. What pleasant state of consciousness do unselfish actions produce as mentioned in the

second argument?

3. According to the article, what determines whether it is selfish or not?4. Why does ethical egoism cannot be universalized? State the argument.5. What kind of people are genuine egoists?

Review Questions:

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

The legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who has found a magic ring. The magic ringonce worn by someone can make that someone invisible, which means, he or she can doanything that pleases him without being seen. And so Gyges having that ring in his finger

went to the Royal Palace. He seduced the queen, kill the king, and become the new king.

The question in the story is what a man of virtue and a bad guy would do with the magicring. Would the man of virtue take advantage of the power of the magic ring and dowrong deeds like the bad guy. The answer according the article is yes the man of virtueand the bad guy will choose to do the wrong acts; after all, no one can see them no oneis there to witness the mischief or whatsoever bad deeds. Quoting White and Rachels,What reason is there for him to continue being moral when it is clearly not to his ownadvantage to do so?

8/14/2019 CMPReader

4/53

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Quoting Rachels, psychological egoism hold that all human actions are self-interested.People acts are all for his or her benefit or advantage only. If ever a person does good, itdoes not mean that it is for true good, rather, there is a motive into it. Here, it is simplystates that actions of people are all out of self-interest.

As for the other egoism, quoting Rachels, ethical egoism says that all actions ought to beself-interested. In other words, actions of people should be only done out of self-interest.

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

The first argument for psychological egoism is that a person who does what he wants todo is selfish. However, there are situations when a person does not want to do such actsbut choose to do anyway so as to complete the means to an end and/or fulfill anobligation, which is still selfish. Quoting Rachels answer for the first argument, It is theobject of a want that determines whether it is selfish or not. The mere fact that I am actingon my wants does not mean that I am acting selfishly; that depends on what it is that Iwant.

As for the second argument, it is said that unselfish acts leads to a sense of self-satisfaction for the consciousness. This spoils the situation of just doing pure good toothers. Quoting Rachels answer for this argument, if we have a positive attitude towardthe attainment of some goal, then we may derive satisfaction from attaining that goal.

4. What are the three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis ofpsychological egoism?

The first confusion from psychological egoism is confusion about self-interest being aselfish act. The next confusion is those actions done either of self-interest or othermotives. Last, the care for ones self is different from caring for others. It is said that noone is really concerned for the welfare of everyone.

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachelsaccept this argument?

Quoting Rachels, the argument is, To say that any action or policy of action is right (orthat it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right for anyone in the same sort ofcircumstances.

Rachels refuse to accept the argument because even if an egoist chooses to contradicthis actions to his principles, it is just part of the plan, a stepping-stone, so he can achievehis purpose. Quoting Rachels, what he advocates and what he does are both calculatedas means to an end (the same end, we might note). He cannot be refuted by the claimthat he contradicts himself. (James Rachels)

8/14/2019 CMPReader

5/53

6. According to Rachels, why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help others?

How can the egoist reply?

According to Rachels answer, we should not hurt others because doing so would bringdamage or danger to other people. The same goes, we should help others because theyneed help.

With regards to an egoist reply, he would reject those acts.

Discussion Questions:

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

No, Rachels does not clearly answer the question of Glaucon. He just mentioned,quoting, the majority of mankind is grossly deceived about what is, or ought to be, thecase, where morals are concerned.

2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care aboutothers, evenpeople they dont know?

In my opinion, yes, genuine egoists are rare. I believe most people care aboutthemselves, their family, friends, and even strangers. However, the care for people youdidnt know is somewhat hidden and shy.

Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit

of others and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

It depends on the situation whether it is immoral or not. For instance, a person will killhimself because he thinks that he is a shame to his family would be immoral.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

6/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 2: John Arthur - Religion, Morality,and Conscience



Quote:

It seems wrong to conclude, automatically, that morality cannot rest on anything butreligion. And it is also possible that morality doesnt have any foundation or basis at all, sothat its claims should be ignored in favor of whatever serves or own self-interest by JohnArthur.


I expect to know Arthurs say on religion, morality, and conscience. I want to know thedifference at the same time connection of morality and religion. Morality and religion is oftenpartnered together, I wonder about the reason why it is so. Another thing, I expect discussionabout the divine command theory and to know its relation to morality and/or religion. Last, Ilook forward to the explanation of why morality is social.

Chapter Review:

Even if this chapter is quite long, the topics are interesting and intriguing enough.Choosing to discuss morality and God is a sensitive topic. I like the discussion about morality

and religion. As I remember, morality and religion is often put together without clear reason ofwhy is it so. Most people mistakenly believe that morality and religion co-exist with eachother. This chapter has done a good explanation of their connection as well as difference. Ifind myself in agree of religion being necessary and not necessary I cannot decide whichone to side.

I agree to what Arthur has to say about religion, it really has an effect on peoples thinking.Religion helps man to have the will to continue doing the right thing even if it is hard even ifthere is sacrifice or cost to it. At the end of the day, religion is what motivates people, which Ithink is good. I can say that religion moves or pushes people to do the good.

However, I also agree that in doing the right, people do not only consult what religion has to

say but they also consider other factors. It is very true that one thinks of the consequence ofhis/her action or thinks of what other people might think of him/her for doing such acts orhe/she really wanted to do it.

As for the other topics of this chapter, the argument about the revelation is exciting. Itis nice to read the questions addressed by Arthur of how much do we need to know inreligion to say that we are on the right track, the question of which religion is true and howsure are we that we are interpreting correctly the revelation. I really appreciate the straightforwardness of the questions laid down by the author.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

7/53

Likewise, for the divine command theory, Arthur does have exhibited a point in it. The

wicked part here is his statement of the dependence of moral laws to God, which goessomething like - if not for God, moral laws will not exist. Another thing, Arthur disagrees of theclaim that Gods commands are the only basis of what is right and wrong.

It is interesting to know how Arthur challenge the readers of God change what is right todayand making it wrong in the future would you still follow it. The same thing with the situationwherein you find yourself thinking that an act is wrong but since God does not have acommand for it, and then it becomes right no questions asked. I like the way Arthur presentto the readers, how people become dependent on Gods commands in judging morality.Hopefully, no one has changed his/her mind because of it.

With morality is social, Arthur does not disapprove on anything rather he defends howmorality can be social and that is with the help of conscience.

What I learned:

I learned the difference of religion and morality in terms of meaning. Speaking ofdefinition of words, I now know what divine command theory is. Also, I learned the differentissues of morality and religion of how important the two for some people and how otherslook at it as something absurd. I learned about the influence that religion gives to morality.


1. What is it to have a moral code?2. Why is religion necessary?3. What does religion means?

4. What is divine command theory?5. What does conscience demands from us?

Review Questions:

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

Morality, quoting Arthur, is to tend to evaluate the behavior of others and to feel guilt atcertain actions when we perform them. In terms of practices, morality, involves ourattitudes toward various forms of behavior typically expressed using the notion of rules,rights, and obligation. (John Arthur)

While religion, quoting Arthur, involves beliefs in supernatural power(s) that created andperhaps also control nature, the tendency to worship and pray to those supernaturalforces or being, and the presence of organizational structures and authoritative texts.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

8/53

2. Why isnt religion necessary for moral motivation?

Religion is not necessary for moral motivation because people also consider otherperspectives in relation to doing what is right. For instance, choose to do right thingsbecause they think and believe that is right and/or they want to be right after all. Likewise,people also look at the consequences of their action and what other people might think ofthem before they act.

3. Why isnt religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?

Religion is not necessary as a source of moral knowledge because first, there are a lot ofmoral teachings about religion and revelation, people do not exactly know how muchteachings are they supposed to know to in order to be morally guided. Secondly, peopleare having difficulty in interpreting the revelation; the question is how sure are people thatthe interpretations regarding the revelation are correct. Last, people are caught in adilemma of which revelation is the word of God or the Bible.

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

Quoting Mortimers view, the divine command theory, would mean that God has thesame sort of relation to moral law as the legislature has to statutes it enacts: withoutGods commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there wouldbe no statutes. In simpler terms, morality will not exist if it was not for God whocommands it.

Arthur chooses to be at the opposing side for the divine command theory because first,one cannot achieve what is right just by commanding it. According to Arthur, having to

follow Gods command and just being right is not the same. The basis of what is rightcannot be solely based by commanding it. Next, there is this confusion that only thosethat are commanded by God are right. For instance, if one thinks that this is wrong,however, God did not command it, and thus it is should automatically be right. Theargument here is that what is right today might be wrong tomorrow just because Godcommands so. God can change the standards of what is right and wrong and people is ofno right to disobey it.

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

The connection of morality to religion is that the morality of people is more or less

influenced by religion. People still consult the texts interpretations of experts for moralitymatters. Further, religion affects the personal level of a person in which morality is beingformulated.

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

Morality is social means three things for Arthur. One, morality is here because peoplehave the sense to be social in their choices, to think of the effect of their actions.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

9/53

Second, morality is social because morality in the first place, refers to buildingrelationships with other people it guides people on how to live and interact with others.Last, people are meant to give their opinions and reactions to the actions of the otherpeople if it is according to what is moral.


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

Yes. Arthur more or less, disapproves of the divine command theory. For him, there ismore in morality than just depending it to Gods commands. He just merely states theabsurdness of the theory and that he believes on the practical side or reality of the storyinstead.

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhumananimals? (Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to in footnote6.)

Peoples obligation to nonhuman animals is to respect them and treat them right in a waythat one should put his/her shoes to the place of nonhuman animals. Likewise, one canalso check his/her conscience and the opinions of other people.

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

Moral education is, quoting Dewey, thinking education, that listening to others, readingabout what others think and do, and reflecting within ourselves about our actions and

whether we could defend them to others.

Yes, a college ethics class can be consider part of moral education. It is because itinvolves discussions and that it presents different issues about morality and opinions ofexperts. College ethics opens the concepts at the same time leave arguments forstudents that they have to conclude.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

10/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 3: Friedrich Nietzsche - Master-and Slave-Morality



Quote:

The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does notrequire to be approved of; he passes judgment by Friedrich Nietzsche.


I expect to know Friedrich Nietzsche opinion about master- and slave-morality, alsothe text definition of it. I wonder if it has something to do with societys hierarchy. I assumethat there would be an explanation of how come there exists a morality in a master and in aslave set-up. In addition with this, I look forward to knowing the Will to Power and creator ofvalues.

Chapter Review:

This chapter even if it is short, the topic requires in-depth understanding. Honestly, Ifind myself confused about certain parts. I suggest that the Nietzsche should have at leastbeen straight to his words. The order of the topics for this article is somewhat mixed-up and Ido not like that the author have his discussion in a passive and confusing way. Honestly, I

wish Nietzsche should explain more the master- and slave-morality and give examples foreach.

So much for the comments, I am confused on the morality term in master-moralityand slave-morality - how come there exists a morality in those two topics. Based on myunderstanding, there is a chaos or gap or fight between the master and slave, the aristocratsand the common people.

In connection with this, quoting Nietzsche, According to slave-morality, therefore, the evilman arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the good man who arousesfear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. I wonderif this fight of the master and morality has something to do with the Will to Power. In my

understanding, will to power happens in situations where survival is at stake. Here, someonechooses to be the oppressor because if it is the other way around, he will be killed or be aslave. This is likely referring to survival of the fittest.

I am really not sure to where does master and slave-morality leads to although, I think it isthe opportunity to be the master once and for all and not a slave no more. The sad thing isthat people cannot just live in peace and harmony, instead of living a life wherein everyone isequal to the other. Some people choose to be engaged in fights and chaotic situation.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

11/53

Anyway, the cool thing about this master-morality is the creator of values instances.One has the right to acknowledge what is good and bad for him based on his/her standards.There is no approval of other people involved - you are your own master as the saying goes.

With that, one can say that the creator of values supports the undertaking of master- andslave-morality. Even if the master oppresses the slave or both of them oppress each enemysside, it is all allowed. This reasoning is actually perfect as a defense mechanism for thoseauthorities that are after you.

Before I end, I want to discuss the stand of Nietzsche in terms of injury, violence, andexploitation, based on his writing I am getting an idea which I am unsure of, that he agreeswith those harmful things, only that to avoid being oppressed; you might as well be just as theoppressor.

I also want to say something about the appreciation one must give to the person in whomsacrifice himself so that there can be subject for oppression. I find this not good and crazy.To thank a person for lowering down himself leaves a question mark for me.

What I learned:

Even if it is still unclear to me, I can still say that somehow I learned about master-and slave-morality. I learned how important it is for each party to be feared by their enemy.Also, I have a bit of knowledge on the character that the master and the slave must portray inthe society. Last, I am able to get the idea of what is will to power and the creator of values.


1. What does master-morality mean?2. What country does corruption is first exhibited?

3. What does creator of values mean?4. How do the aristocrats sees the common people in terms of characteristics?5. What is the other term for slave-morality?

Review Questions:

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

According to Nietzsche, a good and healthy society, allows superior individuals to livetheir desired life whether it is subjected to bad side. In this society, there exist master-and slave- morality.

2. What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence, and exploitation?

For Nietzsche, to avoid injury, violence, and exploitation is not acceptable. In order for aperson to survive, he/she must inure, bring violence, and exploit others or else he/she willbe in that place. Although, this seems chaotic and anti-life, the bottom line is that oneshould have to fight back in order not to be weak.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

12/53

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

Master-morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom. (Nietzsche) On theother hand, slave-morality, quoting Nietzsche, that calls for weakness, submission,sympathy, and love

4. Explain the Will to Power.

Will to Power refers to the superiors having to exercise their power towards the inferior.This is also called will to life. Will to Power is when if one wants to be powerful andabove, he/she must know how to fight even if it is wrong to harm others.


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

Based on Nazism, the Nazis thinks and believes that their race should be the superiorones and that they should rule the world for that. As for the other races, they should bekilled or be ruled.

With that, yes, Nietzsches writing more or less inspires Nazism. It is because based onNietzsche view of injury, violence, and exploitation, it is alright to do harm to other peoplethan other people hurting or killing you. In connection with this, he believes in a ruler andslave set-up he thinks that there should be people to oppress and be oppressed. Thereis no way that hierarchy would be gone and it is impossible to have equal status among

people.

2. What does it mean to be a creator of values?

Creator of values, quoting Nietzsche, he honours whatever he recognises in himself. Itis also refer as a determiner of values. In other words, the person is the one responsiblefor recognizing the value of his/her actions. For instance, what is bad to you is not bad tome because I am the one in-charge of judging what is good and bad for myself. It is likedefining the good and bad based on what you think it is for yourself, not by the laws ofsociety or Gods commands.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

13/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 4: Mary Midgley - Trying OutOnes New Sword



Quote:

Morally as well as physically, there is only one world, and we all have to live in it byMary Midgley.


I expect to be introduced to Mary Midgley and her opinion about morality. I want toknow what is moral isolationism because it is new to my ears. I wonder what does connectionit has with morality. I suppose to read the interesting at the same time unusual practice ofSamurais in Japan. I also assume a little background discussion of the Japanese sword.

Chapter Review:

Overall, I like the discussion in this chapter and I must say that I am able to learn newwords or terms and concepts while I am reading it. It is interesting to know about the SamuraiSword Testing practice in Japan at the same time to be refreshed about the femalecircumcision practice of other countries. My opinion of the Samurai Sword Testing is that it isquite cool to test a newly created katana (Japanese sword).

The appearance and how a katana is made is really amazing. I am always fond of looking ata katana pictures. Anyway, to try the katana on humans or animals is a different and uncoolstory; in my opinion, the samurai could at least look for an alternative testing subject, forinstance is the bamboo tree.

With regards to moral isolationism, this concept is actually new to me and to my ears.I only encounter it after I have read this chapter. I did not know that there exists such moralityconcept. Speaking of moral isolationism, I am surprised to know that the to respect attitudeof people toward each other culture in which is reflected through the no comment answer ismore or less considered to be moral isolationism. In Midgleys point, the no commentanswer is not a sign of respect at all this I think is interesting.

This is a brave statement. I wonder if how many people and culture have opposed this claim.It is because most culture does not want outside people intervening with their practices andsaying what is good and bad. In connection with this, the saying that you cannot criticize aculture since you do not understand it does have a point. In order to rightly criticize a thing,you must have full understanding of it; otherwise, the comments you say will be useless.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

14/53

I know I am negating Midgleys opinion and more of going at the moral isolationism side, butif you do not understand the culture that you judging on, we can say that the judgment onehas is of no basis at all and that it is just hocus-pocus or rage of feelings.

To continue, it is good that Midgley also include in her article the devotion and disciplineanswer when it comes to questions about culture. I often heard this answers especially whensomeone is criticizing a culture that its culture is bad or weird. Groups of that culture usuallysay that it is a devotion or discipline they must follow and that it should be respected nomatter what.

On the other hand, even if I negate some of Midgleys opinion, I must say that I agreeon her about, quoting, all cultures are formed out of many streams. I personally think thatcultures are related to one another and that a certain culture is a mixture of other cultures.The thought behind of why cultures are so diverse is for the reason that it has manyinfluences.

People in that culture have just properly manage their culture in a way that it will be uniqueand be fit to them. No matter how different cultures are for each group, there are somesimilarities to it.

What I learned:

This chapter has introduced me of moral isolationism the meaning and its relation inhaving to criticize someone elses culture. I learned the Samurai Sword Testing practice inJapan and isolating barriers. Similarly, I become aware of how critical it is to judge onesculture practice, that in an expert point of view, there are questions to consider on whether ornot it is right to intervene with others cultures.


1. What does tsujigiri is all about?2. What does judging means?3. What does moral isolationism limits people to do?4. Where does real moral skepticism leads?5. What is the trouble with crude opinion?

Review Questions:

1. What is moral isolationism?

Moral isolationism, quoting Midgley, the view of anthropologists and others that wecannot criticize cultures that we do not understand.

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

8/14/2019 CMPReader

15/53

The Japanese custom tsujigiri involves an owner of a sword and a traveler; the situationis that this owner will have to try out his/her sword to any traveler. This is to check if theblade is really that sharp and that the sword can really kill someone in just a single blow.

The questions of Midgley are the following, quoting:Would we ourselves be qualified to deliver such an indictment on the Samurai, providedwe could spend two weeks in ancient Japan?If I want to say that the Samurai culture has many virtues, or to praise the SouthAmerican Indians, am I prevented from doing that by my outside status?

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

According to Midgley, moral isolationism leaves no room for moral reasoning orargument. It prevents people from giving out opinions or comments. As the rule says,people outside of the circle do not have the right to intervene because in the first placethey do not understand and of no knowledge on what is happening.

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

Midgley basis for criticizing other cultures is that if people are not allowed to give theiropinions to other peoples culture, then we too are also not allowed to say something toour own culture.

Also, for Midgley, judging the culture of others is a necessity for people will know what toavoid and follow. Another thing is that this criticizing of others culture is part of beingmoral especially if we are to address the morality issues of a certain culture.


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

Yes, most likely it is true. If we were to base our judgment to Nietzsches Master- andSlave-Morality article, we can say that he is immoralist for allowing such oppression tothe weak. However, Midgleys judgment to Nietzsche as an immoral without stating thereasons is unfair.

2. Do you agree with Midgleys claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is

unreal? Explain your answer.

Yes, I believe that cultures are a mixture of other cultures and that one way or the otherthere is a connection in each of them. The only difference here is that people havesuccessful manage to alter a mixed of culture so that it would fit into their peoplescharacter.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

16/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7th Edition - Chapter 5: John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism



Quote:

It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has thegreatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feelthat any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. by JohnStuart Mill.


I expect to learn something about utilitarianism and the proposition of categoricalimperative. I want its contribution in ethics. Also, I look forward to the arguments of principleof utility and the reason why Hedonism claims that happiness is pleasure.

Chapter Review:

I like that the start of the article explained first the meaning of happiness andunhappiness and how can ones action be considered as such. As the article says, action isright, if there is happiness to it; while action is wrong, if there is no happiness. I have onecomment regarding here though, if happiness is pleasure. And pleasure is bad, is it possible

to consider that happiness is pleasure is bad.

There are also some structures that I do not quite understand. For instance, the topic aboutthe desirable as ends. I wonder if my understanding is correct, that it is the end wonderfulsituation.

Enough with the comments and I want to share this interesting discussion Mill have,quoting Mill, beasts pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness.Mill do have point here, animals do not really give a second thought about happiness. Theydo not know the importance of happiness.

Another good topic is the quality versus quantity happiness. In my opinion, it is up to the

individual to weigh things out, on which is important or has value. It all depends on theperson if he or she is more of quality happiness or the other way around.

Also, this quote is quite funny but intelligent enough, quoting Mill, It is better to be a humanbeing dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Likewise, it is surprising to know the ingredients ofhappiness.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

17/53

Quoting Mill, A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capableprobably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of aninferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feelsto be a lower grade of existence.

I think that there are persons who are like this those individuals who find it hard to be happyor they have standard on when to become happy. For them, happiness is this or that andsometimes they are the ones who restrict themselves to feel that happiness. This lead me toobject of desire, each person have different object desire in which they measure theirhappiness.

What I learned:

I learned the meaning of desirable pleasure, pride, and the golden rule of utilitarianmorality. Aside from that I also learned about the higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Last,I get to know the meaning of virtue in utilitarian view.


1. What is the utilitarian standard when it comes to right what is right in conduct?2. What is the end of human actions based on the utilitarian opinion?3. What is happiness and unhappiness?4. What is the measurement when assessing consequences?5. What is the other name of Principle of Utility?

Review Questions:

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

The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle state that the actions are rightin proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce thereverse of Happiness. By happiness are intended pleasures and the absence of pain; byunhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures.

Principle of Utility or Great Happiness could be used to justify conventionally wrong actionsuch as stealing and lying because both bring unhappiness. When someone lies to otherpeople, there are two most common reasons that they have, first is that they dont want tohurt other people so they just lie, the second one is that the truth will badly affect what is

important to his/her. But no matter on what aspect you will look, lying will only bringunhappiness because you hide something from someone which always being mislead ormisinterpret as backstabbing or untrustworthiness.

With stealing, on Utilitarian point of view, it is wrong because a single snatcher or stealercan affect or can bring unhappiness to other people. By single pick-picketers, s/he canvictimize 20 people a day, which can bring unhappiness to the majority. And for theUtilitarian, what can cause unhappiness is wrong.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

18/53

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

Mill said that it is degrading because the beasts pleasure does not satisfy human beingsconceptions of happiness.

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

According to Mill, he said that a pleasure is merely a pleasure, and the only difference isthe greater in amount. The higher pleasure is the one that all or almost all who haveexperience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feelings of moralobligation to prefer it.

The lower pleasure is when those who are competently acquainted with both, place so farabove the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greateramount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasureswhich their nature is capable of.

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

Though it wasnt clearly stated, according to what I understand, the happiness that shouldbe considered is the majority or those higher in terms of number that can be happy by acertain events, decision, etc.

5. Carefully reconstruct Mills proof of the Principle of Utility.

Mill said The Utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thingdesirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as

means to that end.


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

I dont really think happiness is the absolute absence of pain and nothing more butpleasures. I said this because in reality, you know happiness because you experiencedsadness.

Happiness is something that you feel when you dont feel any pain, happiness is

something that you feel when you know that even you have bunch or problems or you willbe hurt, you still have the courage to smile or be happy because at least you do what youwanted, no regrets. In addition, for me happiness is not for a pleasure alone, you can onlyfeel true happiness even the presence of pleasures is absent.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

19/53

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

ones?

Actually, up to now, I dont really understand the difference of the two pleasures becausethe definition is too technical and my brain is already tired. Though I dont fullyunderstand it, I can say that higher pleasure is better because it requires man to be areally superior being.

For those people who chooses lower pleasures over the higher, I can say that thosethings are case to case basis or very subjective. You will chose something that isappropriate for what you have encountered in you walk through your life. I dont reallythink it would matter whether you are into higher or lower, because like what Mill said, itsboth pleasures and the only thing they differ is the greater in number.

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

I do agree with this because the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth stated that: to do asyou would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitutes the idealperfection of utilitarian morality. On the principle of utility, you should do something thatwill benefit the majority. You should be the cause of happiness not the other way around,and in order to start or be the cause of others happiness, you main basis is yourself.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mills 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 toreformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

Midgley think that the basis for criticizing others culture is the culture of our own. Sheraise the question How can we cant judge others culture, can we really judge our own?

8/14/2019 CMPReader

20/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 6: James Rachels The Debateover Utilitarianism



Quote:

His own view is that utilitarianism is correct in telling us to consider theconsequences of actions and in advising us to be impartial, but not incorrect in ignoring otherimportant moral considerations such as merit by James Rachels.


I expect to know James Rachels view regarding utilitarianism. Also, I want to knowthe anti-utilitarian arguments mentioned. I look forward to knowing what is hedonism andclassical utilitarianism. I wonder if classical utilitarianism is different from utilitarianism.

Chapter Review:

I find this chapter interesting especially the anti-utilitarianism part. It is not that that Iam anti or what; rather the arguments do have point. On the other side, I have disagreed onsome dialogue in this chapter but all in all I have fun reading this.

The first disagree act, quoting Rachels, the only thing that matters is the amount of

happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Maybe happiness is important or one of the mostimportant aspect, however, I do believe that there are other aspects that is equally importantto happiness as well; for instance, life, health, or God.

Next, disagreement of mine, quoting Rachels again, no ones happiness is to be counted asmore important than anyone elses. This sounds unfair unfair to ones self. Should it bebetter if an individuals happiness is also considered? What is happiness for if you cannotexperience it by your own, only the other people?

Another quote can also be found in this chapter which is quite similar to the latter quote Imentioned and I still claim that this is somewhat in a little way wrong. For instance, if you arethe black sheep in the family and everyone is wishing for you to get lost. In order to give their

happiness, you will commit suicide so no more black sheep for them. The question now, isthis happiness and moral? Of course, there are other ways in which the person can give thehappiness, but still what if this example is the only situation accepted.

I would also like to comment on the section in the article where it claims that feelings canmake our account in determining good or bad.

As for the things that I came to agree with, I agree with contemporary utilitarian thatthere is a need for classical theories to be modified so that they would fit in the current set-

8/14/2019 CMPReader

21/53

up. Another thing, I came to like this quote, quoting Mill, What things are good? Is differentfrom the question What actions are right?

Hedonism seems interesting; the clash of ultimate goodness and ultimate badness. QuotingRachels, Hedonism would have to say no, because you are never caused any unhappinessby the situation. Sounds good but this can be misleading and comedic.

The three line of defense is also a good reading. It even indirectly mentioned whitelies. The rule-utilitarianism is quite good. The thought behind it do change as to compare itbefore.

What I learned:

I learned the arguments for anti-utilitarianism. Likewise, I now know the theory calledhedonism and the three line of defense. Moreover, I learned that maybe experts can createor combine theories to be used for todays set-up.


1. What does preference utilitarianism means?2. What is hedonism?3. What are the three intrinsic goods for Moore?4. What is rule-utilitarianism?5. What is the first line of defense?

Review Questions:

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

Classical Utilitarianism is classified as:a. First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their

consequences.b. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of

happiness or unhappiness that is caused.c. Third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones

happiness as to be counted as more important than anyone elses.

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

Hedonism is the idea about happiness is the one ultimate good and unhappiness is theone ultimate evil. According to Rachels, the problem about Hedonism is it gets thing thewrong way around. Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is notsomething that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other thingsappreciated only as means of bringing it about.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

22/53

8/14/2019 CMPReader

23/53

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

According to my previous readings, utilitarians focus more on human beings. I dontneglect the nonhuman animals and the lakes and the streams. I think there is also a partof Utilitarianism that protects these natures gift because it can affect or causeunhappiness to the most essential being, the humans.

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

I am agreeing to that because I think merit should really be something that givenindependently of utility because I think that people treat this differently.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

24/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 7: Immanuel Kant TheCategorical Imperative



Quote:

Act only on that maxim through which you are at the same time will that it shouldbecome a universal law. by Immanuel Kant.


I expect to be familiar with the supreme rule Kant is talking about. Likewise, I lookforward to knowing categorical imperative and goodwill.

Chapter Review:

The author discusses good will as something which more or less brings good. In myopinion, this is actually true; good will affects the outlook of the person to the things aroundhim or her at the same time his/her view of own self. On the other hand, Kant have furtherdeepen his explanation of good will quoting, A good will is not good because of what iteffects or accomplishes because of its fitness for attaining some propose end: it is goodthrough its willing alone.

I am not sure if my understanding is correct, but as I see it, Kant is saying that the will good isfor it helps one to reach the proposed end. However, the will is not enough to makesomeone move or to do something. For Kant, there is something more than just will; which Ithink I quite agree.

As for the immediate inclination discussion, again I am unable to really understandits concept but the example situation has been helpful to my understanding. I wish the authorcould have given a simple definition of it. The word immediate inclination seems hard todefine; based on the dictionary, inclination refers to liking. If that is so, then immediateinclination is acting out of liking or preference.

I want to comment on the part associated with living ones life; Kant said that this is

brought of as a duty and some immediate inclination. I wonder if duty is the word to associatewith living ones life. If I were to ask, I believe that it is more of one chooses to live not justbecause one is tasked to. The word duty sounds like one is oblige to live and nothing else.

Similarly, quoting Kant, It is precisely in this that the worth of character begins to show-amoral worth and beyond all comparison the highest-namely, that he does good, not frominclination but from duty. I disagree with this because it is like saying that doing well to otherpeople is a duty whether you like it or not. It lacks that initiative or true effort to help. In the

8/14/2019 CMPReader

25/53

end, helping other people is more of like a command and a duty to follow, not just you have aheart to help.

In connection what I mentioned, I did not know that there is such moral content measurementto ones duty. Based from the example on the article, duty does not always result to havinggenuine moral worth.

It is included in the article that one should actually will that their maxim become auniversal law. This is somehow pretty cool your maxim as a universal law of mankind.According to Kant, the purpose of this is to test if ones will is good and without qualification.Come to think of it, I think it is an effective test of the will. The example questions of thearticle with regards to the will are interesting to read.

Quoting Kant, whatever they are directed to himself or to other rational beings,always be viewed at the same time as an end. I honestly, do not get this clear; myunderstanding is that you are an end of yourself. I do not like Kants claim about personsbeing subjective ends. People should not be treated as an end or means to an end, for afterall, they are not things.

What I learned:

I learned what good will is in a different point of view that one should will theirmaxim to become part of the universal law. In addition with this, I learned the singlecategorical imperative. Further, I become more or less aware of the thought of immediateinclination.


1. What is immediate inclination?2. What does categorical imperative refer to?3. What does one can will at their maxim?4. What do call the ground of the possibility of an action whose effect is an end?5. What is will?

Review Questions:

1. Explain Kants account of the good will.

Kant says that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out of it

except of the Good Will. Good will is something that makes intelligence, wit, judgment,and any other talents of the mind we may care to name or courage, resolution, andconstancy of purpose as qualities of temperament as good character. Good will is good initself.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

26/53

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical imperatives in general say that you dont know beforehand the content untilthe condition is given, while on categorical imperative, you already know the content orwhat it contains.

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

The first formulation of the categorical imperative says Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

Kant says that if all imperative of duty can be derived from this one imperative as theirprinciple, then even although we leave it unsettled whenever what we call duty may notbe an empty concept, we shall still be able to show at least we understand what theconcept means.

I think what Kant means is that there is only one thing that can be said universal toeverything that you will do. It is something that you can say as your principle regardingthe things that you are living with.

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

Kants second imperative says Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means but always as the same time as an ends.

I think Kant is saying that you should be the judge on your own life. Having an ends canmeans that what you are doing isnt a subject on any external critiques because it alreadyreach it end, it already reach its limit.


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

I do thing that the two imperatives are similar because when you carefully look at it, you

will realized that both imperatives says that you should be the ruler of your life. The firstsays that you should have one universal law, which linked you to the second imperativethat says you should be on the end or be definite.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

27/53

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 dont agree with him, because for me there are things or actions that you do beyond themotive of duty. There are instances that you do something without any feeling to do sobecause of the simple reason that you just wanted to do.

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

Actually I dont know because personally, I cant really decipher the real meaning of thefirst imperative because I think that there is really no universal law because life does havedifferent perspective in which you can never have one saying fits all thing.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

28/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 8: Aristotle Happiness and Virtue



Quote:

Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general,for anything other than itself. by Aristotle.


I expect to know the connection of happiness to virtue. I look forward to the Aristotlesexplanation of intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Further, I want to know the goodness thatvirtue brings to ones life.

Chapter Review:

The topics for this chapter include finding true happiness, contemplation, living oneslife, and having virtues. Also, Aristotle mentioned about the three prominent types of life enjoyment, political, and contemplation. Speaking of the types of life, I think that the typescan be ones basis of how to live a wonderful life. I believe that the lowest type of life is theenjoyment and that the highest would be the contemplation.

With these types of life, Aristotle discusses the happiness which occurs for each. Based from

my understanding, each type of life has different level and meaning of happiness. This led usto the question of what really is a true happiness.

Aristotle has given a well said explanation of what happiness should be and that it involvesvirtue. I have to say that I like the definition of happiness that he stated, quoting Aristotle,Happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for thesake of something else This is actually true, happiness is happiness, unlike other things, onetake it to be happy and there are also other reasons included.

It is surprising that this chapter even mentioned the characteristics of happiness for otherpeople. Moreover, there even exists a condition that a virtue must be good and noble to beeffective.

For the other topics for this chapter, I agree with Aristotle about happiness being anactivity of the soul. Happiness I think must come to you or you must initiate it or you have totake part on being able to feel it. Quoting Aristotle again, happiness seems, however, even ifit is not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process of learning or training. Inconnection with this, happiness is more or less formed in the ones contemplation.

Having to mention contemplation, I am in agree to what Aristotle says that ordinary peopleneed others to help them find happiness and to have someone to show it with. I think that

8/14/2019 CMPReader

29/53

finding happiness without the help of other people requires deep thinking and appreciation ofthings that is just a hard thing to do - and so I just look up to those people who keeps thatpositive attitude towards life.

As for virtue, moral virtue, Aristotle defines it as a theory in which the mean is alwaysinto consideration. Actually, finding the mean of something or of a virtue is quite difficult.Based from Aristotles example, I am a bit shocked of the virtue in which he refers to as amean of a set of virtue.

At any rate, thinking of what is the mean of something is fun.

What I learned:

I learned about the concept true happiness and virtues. I learned how virtue,happiness, and life connect with each other. Aside from that, I now know the meaning of themean of Aristotle.


1. What is the difference between moral virtue and intellectual virtue?2. According to Aristotle, what is happiness?3. What are the three prominent types of life?4. What is virtue?5. What do you call the state of soul, and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of

is pleasant?

Review Questions:

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

Quoting Aristotles words, Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake ofthese, nor, in general, for anything other than itself.. In other words, happiness ishappiness; it is the chief good as Aristotle said. This state is what mankind wants. To beable to experience happiness in its true essence is hard a thing to do. Although, there arehappiness that is easily felt but only for a short time. As explained by Aristotle, there ismore depth in happiness it is not pleasure, but rather, the virtues that one have.

Speaking straight to the point, virtue helps man achieve the happiness. Happiness and

virtue works hand-in-hand together. I can say that virtue can be the final step to reach thehappiness.

With regards to pleasure, people usually make this mistake of referring it as thehappiness. Man associate pleasure money, material things, and power to happiness. Atany rate, technically, I can say that pleasure is the lowest form of happiness there is; ifever there is a level of happiness.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

30/53

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.

Quoting Aristotles words, Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is astate of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Habit, in asense that, it is practicing a kind of life that is under moderation, for training, it is abouthaving to discipline ones self from pleasures of the world.

Moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is about being at the mean or intermediate. This virtueaffects mans excess and deficiency to his or her passions and actions. Anything in lifethat is in excess and deficient is bad. Happiness is to achieve only by moderation. It is allabout being at the right instances and situation. However, there are exemptions to therule, for instance, those actions and/or passions that are obviously bad, are always andwill be bad. Also, an important note, choosing the middle is deciding what is intermediatefor ones self.

An example of moral virtue, being dependent or a parasite to someone is an extreme andbeing independent to the point of doing things all by yourself, and not wanting to minglewith others on the other hand, is a form of deficiency. The mean of the two is by beingparticipative and self-sufficient all together. Another example, gluttony or overeating as anextreme and fasting or diet as a deficiency; the mean is to eat right serving and type offood.

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

Yes, everyone in our society can be happy. As Aristotle explained, quoting, happiness isan activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue, people have soul and virtue, onlythat sometimes mans virtues are not that good and still needs polishing.

In connection with this, people can contemplate about their passions and actions, not tomention that they have practical wisdom that will guide them in having the right and activevirtues. Also, man can share the happiness to each other. It all follows thorough, if one isright in virtues or is good, he or she will do right to other people and thus everyone can behappy.


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

A life of pleasure is a life that is too good to be true. It is all about enjoying materialthings, power, money, fame, and other unnecessary things in life in a selfish way. Selfish,because a man who is crazy about pleasure will do anything just to make his or her willtrue, forget moral virtues.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

31/53

Instant happiness is what a life of pleasure is all about; it is like living a life of lies andillusions; the thing that is wrong here it that, pleasure, is bound to be felt just for a shorttime and that there is no true happiness in it. Here, people tend to forget. Man developsselfishness, greed, and is starting to be blind about the reality of the world. There is onlythe satisfaction of the body, but not the soul.

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

For Aristotle philosopher will be happier than anyone else because he can contemplatealone, which means, he can reflect about his life without the help of other people tounderstand it more. Thus, philosopher has the advantage for he can reason out andfigure the things in life even if there in no one to show him what happiness can be.

Unlike the philosopher, ordinary people need other people to relate their passions andactions. Ordinary people need someone else to show them what right or good can theydo. Other people serve as the judge and the receipt of the passions and actions.Happiness is to be shared by each person.

In my opinion, when it comes to happiness, there is no happier or happiest. Whether onecontemplates alone or not, the happiness that is about to be felt is always be the same. Itis just that the acceptance of the person into that state varies. Happiness of one person isdifferent from the other, but in general, it is all plain and true happiness.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

32/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 9: Joel Feinberg The Nature andValue of Rights



Quote:

person who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they must do something (hence the wordduty) for another person in excess of what that person can appropriately demand of him(hence the absence of right) by Joel Feinberg.


I expect to the nature and value of rights. I look forward to the Nowheresville ofFeinberg. I look forward to the discussion of the connection of Nowheresville to virtue ormorality. I want to know the kinds of claiming.

Chapter Review:

The first thing that I said about this chapter is how imaginative the author is for thereason that there is even a Nowheresville world he got. Most of the examples for this chapterare quite helpful to fully understand the concepts.

Moving on, the principle of logical correlativity of rights and duties is interesting,

although, there are some parts there that I do not quite understand. Likewise, I notice thatmost of the authors of this book relate or equate morals with rights. I wonder what is withrights to have moral concept into it. Yes, they can be paired together but there are otherconcepts out there to relate to.

Quoting Feinberg, Many persons, moreover, in our actual world believe that they arerequired by their own consciences to do more than that duty that can demanded of them bytheir prospective beneficiaries. Actually, I find this quote true. Sometimes, there are peoplewho feel the need to give more or do more toward other people. More or less, these peopleare those that are kind enough.

On the other hand, the principle of desert, I think is more on a personal effort. At any rate, it

is good to know this kind of things.

I notice that in this chapter Feinberg is including Kants principle here. I wonder whatswith Kant theory? Is Feinberg idolize or look up to Kant?

Quoting Feinberg, he only deserved the reward, as opposed to having a right to it, or aground for claiming it at his due. I agree right and deserve is really different from eachother. In my opinion, deserve is something given to a person. While right, the person fightsfor it or get it.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

33/53

In connection with this, the author said something about once there is an agreement,whatever is the part one will gets will be fixed regardless of the effort. Another, I want tocomment on the giving of tips, in todays set-up, there are people who expect tips even if theydo not do anything exceptionally. I do not know if these kind of people are selfish or what.

They equate tip as similar to payment. The same goes here, there are also people who doesnot give tip because they do not acknowledge the effort that the other person is giving.

Quoting Feinberg, to Thee only I have sinned. This is a bit funny and wise but is notthat good. One cannot be consider to have committed a sin to other people, only to God.Quoting Feinberg, God-alone had a claim-right violated by the nonperformance. Is this ahuh or what?

What I learned:

I learned about the whereabouts of Nowheresville the concept of their world andtheir view about rights. Also, I learned about the personal desert of Feinberg and the kinds ofclaiming which I did not know.


1. What is Nowheresville?2. What is personal desert?3. What are tip for, originally?4. What is the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties?5. What is claiming?

Review Questions:

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

Nowheresville, a world like our own except that people does not have rights. As a result,people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly. Theycannot demand or claim just treatment, and so they are deprived of self-respect andhuman dignity.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinbergs

position on this doctrine?

The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties is the doctrine that all dutiesentail other peoples rights and all rights entails other peoples duties. John Feinberg saysthat his answers are a sense of yes and no. He said, etymologically, the word duty isassociated with actions that are due someone else, the payments of the debts tocreditors, the keeping of agreements with promises, the payment of club dues, or legalfees, or tariffs levies to appropriate authorities of their respective.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

34/53

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

Personal desert is when a person is said to deserve something good from us what ismeant in parts is that there would be certain proprietary in our giving that good thing tohim in virtue of kind of person he is, perhaps, or more likely, in virtue of some specificthing he has done.

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

Sovereign monopoly is about the latter case that he could be said not merely to deservethe good thing but also have a right to it as his due; and of course we will not have thatsort of things in Nowheresville. That weaker kind of proprietary which is mere dessert issimply kind of fittingness between ones partys character or action and another partysfavorable response, much like that between humors, laughter, or good performanceapplause.

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

The conceptual linkage between personal rights and claiming has long been noticed bylegal writers and is reflected in the standard usage in which claim rights aredistinguished from other liberties, immunities, and powers, also sometimes called rights,with which they are easily confused.


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

I do think that Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights because inthe Nowheresville, people do not believe in rights.

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

Claim right is to have a right is to have a claim against someone whose recognition asvalid is called for by some set of governing rules or moral principles.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

35/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7 th Edition - Chapter 10: Ronald Dworkin TakingRights Seriously



Quote:

Sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscienceso requires. by Ronald Dworkin.


I expect to learn the moral rights what exactly are they. I assume discussions aboutinstitution of rights; also, I want to know the meaning of right in the strong sense.

Chapter Review:

The discussions for the first part of the article are really interesting. While as for themiddle and last part, there are some things that I cannot quite understand. Nonetheless, themoral rights and institution of rights are good to know. The introductory questions areintriguing and nice to think about.

Moving on, I want to share those lines in the article that catches me and I believe haspoint. First, quoting Dworkin, if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to

interfere with them. This sounds something one can initially agree on and is more of a coolanswering strategy when someone is intervening with your actions; however, there issomething silly or wrong to it.

Second quote from Dworkin, citizens have rights apart from what the law happens to givethem. Come to think of it, I have not yet thought about the other so-called right. Honestly,moral rights are new to my ears. Anyway, it is a good thing to have law rights, individualrights, and moral rights. I wonder if there are different rights similar to what I alreadymentioned or do they refer to just one and same thing.

Last, quoting Dworkin, But that does not mean that the Governments view is necessarily thecorrect view; anyone who thinks it does must believe that men and women have only such

moral rights as Government chooses to grant, which means that they have no rights at all. Iactually agree with that quote, the government is not always right and true. People should notbe too dependent and trustful on their government because there are instances that thegovernment is not really at the peoples side.

I find the sense of right discussion very interesting and how the author explains thethought behind it is so intelligent and amazing. Quoting Dworkin, I mean that it would bewrong for anyone to interfere with you even thought you propose to spend your money in away that I thinks is wrong. There is a clear difference between saying that someone has a

8/14/2019 CMPReader

36/53

right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do, or thathe does no wrong in doing it. This is actually confusing but fun when one gets to fullyunderstand. I must say that the enemy soldier example for this topic is humorous.

In connection with strong sense of right quote, the author also includes the question in whichwill determine if the right to break the law is right. All one needs to do is to ask the value ofhis/her actions and ask if he/she will push through with that right.

Quoting Dworkin, If the Government does not take rights seriously, then it does nottake law seriously either. Speaking of stating some point and I agree to what it is the quotespeak.

In my opinion, the quote can also mean the same thing if it were rearrange, if the governmentdoes not value its law, whats more for the formulation of rights of people. Likewise, if thegovernment is not even serious at all, expect the law and the rights to be taken as a joke.

What I learned:

From this chapter, I learned moral rights and how it affects the Government. I alsolearned the different types of right, if there exists such category moral rights, institution ofrights, individual rights, and rights formed by the law. Last, I become familiar on Governmentinflates a right and Government infringes on a moral right.


1. What is the First Amendment for?2. What does institution of right refer to?3. What does mean when the Government inflates a right?

4. What does mean when the Government infringes on a moral right?5. What is moral right?

Review Questions:

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

On Dworkins view about the rights he said that if a people have a right to do something,then it is wrong to interfere with them. For example, if citizen have a right to free speech,then it is wrong for the government to interfere with the exercise of this right (unless this

is necessary to protect other right). And there are two rights that have been protected bythe U.S Constitution, the legal and moral rights.

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

Moral Rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or aparticular society or polity in contrast Legal rights are rights conveyed by a particular

8/14/2019 CMPReader

37/53

polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingentupon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

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

The first model recommends striking a balance between the rights of the individual andthe demands of the society and was described in this way, has great plausibility, andmost laymen and lawyers he think would respond to it warmly, while the second model isthe more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of apolitical community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their government asthe most powerful members have secured for themselves, so that if some men havegeneral good, then all men have the same freedom. Dworkin find more attractive on thesecond model.

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

According to Dworkin the institution of right must require an act of faith on the part of theminorities and the second was the Government will not reestablished respect of lawwithout giving the law some claim to respect.


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

Yes they have a rights to do that as long as they are not doing wrong and it can beapplied the concept of Dwokin that if a people have a right to do something, then it is

wrong to interfere with them meaning to say that if the people didnt agree on what isstated on the constitution they have a power to break it as long as they have a wellacceptable reason to proved their complains.

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mills utilitarianism?

Yes it is compatible because Mills utilitarianism state that the actions are right inproportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverseof Happiness meaning to say rights are promoted just for us to attain freedom, and ifthere is freedom of course there will be peace and happiness.

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

Yes he will accept it because rights are the only things that can gave every individual afreedom for them to choose what they want and what is the best for them as long as theywill be happy and also as long as their decisions doesnt break the law.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

38/53

8/14/2019 CMPReader

39/53

instance, there are a bunch of people who all have interest in money or property or cars orsports.

What I learned:

I learned the two principles of justice equal basic liberties and arrangement of socialand economic inequalities. Moreover, I learned what justice as fairness is.


1. What is justice as fairness?2. Who are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another?3. What are the features of hypothetical situation?4. What are the two problems of justice as fairness?5. What are the two principles of justice?

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawlss conception of the original position.

Rawlss theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first principle involvesequal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social andeconomic inequalities. According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free andrational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil ofignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

2. State and explain Rawlss first principle of justice.

The first principle states that equal basic liberties are involves meaning to say that justiceshould regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions then having chosen aconception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and alegislature to enact law, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initiallyagreed upon.

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

The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social andeconomic inequalities meaning to say that our social situation is just if it is such that bythis sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the generalsystem of rules which defines it. It will then be true that whenever social constitutionssatisfy theses principle those engaged in them can say that they are cooperating onterms which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations withrespect to one another were fair.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

40/53

They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they wouldacknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonableconstraints on the choice of principle hence this principle cannot be sacrifice no societycan, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense;each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular society, and the nature of thisposition materially affects his life prospects.


1. On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic libertyas long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allowpeople to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in homosexualactivities as long as they dont interfere with others? Can people produce and viewpornography if it does not restrict anyones freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs inthe privacy of their homes?

The first principle is applied to the basic structure of society. They are to govern theassignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economicaladvantages. The aspect of the social system that defines and secures the equal libertiesof the citizenship and those specify and establish social and economic equalities. Thebasic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (the right to vote and to beeligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty ofconscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to holdpersonal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by theconcept of the rule of the law.

These liberties are all required to be equal by the first principle and not those peopleengage in homosexual because as we all know God create man and woman not theother way around. So if you violate the rule of the law there is some punishment

equivalent to your wrongdoing.

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon differentprinciples than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldnt they agree to an equaldistribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, whywouldnt they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isnt socialism just as rational ascapitalism?

I do think yes, because even like what they say that people are selfish in nature, we arealso taught to live for other people. And those values are the reasons why we can agreeon different principles that we know as right.

As for the example, I do think that people will still choose socialism because they knewthat what they do are the right things. In addition, people also knew that in capitalism,only few people will be benefited and this will be against what the moral values that theyknew.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

41/53

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems 7th Edition - Chapter 12: Annette Baier The Need forMore Than Justice



Quote:

women perceive and construe social reality differently from men, and that thesedifferences center around experiences of attachment and separation because womenssense of integrity appears to be intertwined with an ethics of care, so that to see themselvesin a relationship of connexion, the major changes in womens lives would seem to involvechanges in the understanding and activities of care. by D.V, 171.


I expect to learn something about the belief of Baier. I want to know the injustice andcare that Baier is talking about. Similarly, I look forward to the care and justice perspectivediscussion. Further, I want to know the argument about the men versus the women theory.

Chapter Review:

One thing I noticed with this chapter is the clash theory about men and women. Thischapter highlights that the theory made by men are different from women. Baier points thatthe theories of men does not suit the need of women. And so, there is the need for theories

made by women. It is said that the theories of men does not address the women.

In my opinion, maybe there are some theories that do not consider the welfare of the women.There also other ones who are in the middle or speaks for both gender.

Quoting Baier, justice is a social value of very great importance, and injustice anevil. I can say that the quote is more or less true or agreeable. Generally speaking, justice isgood, while injustice is bad. Quoting Baier again, incorporates the value of freedom into hisaccount of justice, so that denial of the basic freedom counts as injustice. I agree with this,

justice is when an individual at least is granted by basic freedom.

Moving to the other topics, the word care being referred to as a Buzz-word is quite

wicked. I would like to agree with its definition, quoting Baier, a felt concern for the good ofothers and for the community with them. I can say that more or less this is what I think theconcept of care.

As for the Gilligan fraternity and sorority discussion, I wonder if it is right to say that care canbe found or seen or experience in fraternitys and/or sorority.

8/14/2019 CMPReader

42/53

Likewise, I want to give my sentiment about the two evils mentioned in this chapter, I did notknow that there is such thing that exist evil of detachment and evil of relativepowerlessness and weakness.I must say that this is interesting at the same time wicked.

Quoting Baier, the women tended to speak in a different voice about morality itselfand about moral maturity. Is that it? In my opinion, maybe yes, morality views of women arequite different from men.What I learned:

I learned about the two infant evils. I also learned that morality is differently see bymen and women. Further, I now know meaning of care and its deep relation to how womencare which is through parenting.


1. What is care?2. What are the two evils?3. What are the three Kantian liberals?4. What are the three reasons frameworks of the liberal morality?5. What counts as injustice according to Rawls?

Review Questions:

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

She distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such as Kant andRawls and the care perspective Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development of

women. Baier argues that the justice perspective by itself in inadequate as a moraltheory. It overlooks inequalities between people, it has an unrealistic view of freedom ofchoice, and it ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. The best moraltheory, she claims, is one that harmonizes justice

cmpreader

Documents