The Contemporary Moral Problems

8/14/2019 The Contemporary Moral Problems

1/26

The Contemporary

Moral ProblemsCHAPTER 1

By: Jeriza Dana M. Junio

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines

License.


2/26

Jeriza Dana M. Junio

O0BITETHICS

Book Review Chapter 1---Ethical Theories

Egoism and Moral Scepticism James Rachels

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

By: James E. White

Library Reference: N/A

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

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:

Why be moral?

--- Glaucon

Learning Expectations:

I want to learn more about Egoism and Moral Scepticism. I want to know more about

different theories that are cited by other philosophers.

Review:This part of the book tells about Egoism and Moral Scepticism. The author of this article

talks about psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism holds that all

human actions are self- interested, whereas ethical egoism says that all actions ought to be self-

interested. Psychological egoism for me means that a person will do the things he or she wants

to do. They do the action because the voluntarily like the thing they do. There are arguments in

this article that dont agree with what I believe in. Some say that a person do the action

because he just feel obligated by it, like for example in a promise, the person who promised

something feels obligated to do what he promised. I think psychological egoism is what people

think he or she wants to do. Ethical egoism is different from psychological egoism because it

requires moral agents to refrain from considering the well-being of others in moral deliberation,

for what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its

effect on others. I think it is up to the person whether he or she will think of the welfare of others.

What I have learned:

I have learned about what I wanted to learn. I have learned to differentiate

psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Integrative Questions:

1.) Differentiate psychological egoism from ethical egoism.

2.) What is psychological egoism?

3.) What is ethical egoism?

4.) Who is James Rachels?

5.) What is the legend of Gyges all about?


3/26

Review Questions:

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

- there is a shepherd who was said to have found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an

earthquake earthquake. The ring would make its wearer invisible and thus would enable him togo anywhere and do anything undetected. Gyges used the power of the ring to gain entry the

Royal Palace where he seduced the queen, murdered the king and subsequently seized the

throne. Is Gyges actions right? Does he need to do such things just o be powerful?

2.) Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

- Psychological egoism holds that all human actions are self- interested, whereas ethical

egoism says that all 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.

- The first argument is if we describe ones person action as selfish, and another persons

action as unselfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the

action is done voluntarily, the agent is doing what he most wants to do. Rachels said that the

reason why they chose to do the act was because that is what they think is right and so that is

considered an act of selfishness.

- The second argument is the unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-

satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness,

it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness, rather

than to bring about any other good for others. He said that if the person does not care at all in

others welfare then he should not have bother himself in thinking for the welfare of other if they

dont care.

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

egoism?

- Confusion of selfishness with self-interest, assumption that every action is done eitherfrom self-interest or from other regarding motives, and assumption that a concern for ones own

welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5.) State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachels accept

this argument?

- Rachels did not agree with it because we cant apply it across the world.

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

can the egoist reply?

- I think the egoist would reply that he dont care about other people so why bother

answering that king of question.

Discussion Question:

1.) Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, Why be moral? If so, what

exactly is hes answer?

- Yes. He did so by stressing out that we could do an act that would basically be of our

own self-interests while not forgetting the cause it might bring to other people. He cited several

distinctions between right and wrong decisions or actions.

2.) Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others,

even people they dont know?


4/26


5/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Religion, Morality, and Conscience --- John Arthur


By: James E. White




Quote:

Morality is social

- John DeweyLearning Expectations:

I want to know what the connection among religion, morality and conscience is. I want

to learn a deeper meaning on each one of them.

Review:

In this part of the book John Arthur discusses three ways morality has been thought to

depend on religion: that without religious motivation people could not be expected to do the

right thing; that religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correctcourse of action; and that religion is essential for there even be a right and wrong. In this topic, I

think I somehow agree and disagree with John Arthur because I think people base their actions

with their religion before deciding to do it. I am raised by my parents to put God in the center of

your life, I think that somehow religion is necessary for morality, because by religion, people get

to think if what they do is against their religion. People should make their decisions wisely; they

should know whether their action is wrong or right; they should not depend only on their selves.

People should be sensitive with their religion, morality and conscience. We should abide with the

law God gave us like the Ten Commandments. We should live by it. People should consider their

actions to be morally proper.


I have learned the relation of religion, morality and conscience. I have gained newknowledge about those three. It widens my knowledge about them.


1.) Who is John Arthur?

2.) What are the three topics discussed in this part?

3.) How is Morality connected to Religion?

4.) What does John Dewey mean by Morality is Social?

5.) Why do we have obligations to non human animals?


6/26

Review Questions:

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

- According to John Arthur, Morality involves our attitudes toward various forms ofbehavior typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights, and obligations while Religion

typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms, and

authoritative texts.

2.) Why isnt religion necessary for moral motivation?

- I think in someway religion is necessary for moral motivation because it helps people to

easily decide whether their action is morally accepted. Even though we can make decisions

without religion, it can still make our decision making easier.

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

- John Arthur discusses and rejects three ways morality has been thought to depend to

religion. Religion in someway have something to do of moral knowledge.

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

- The divine command theory says that only God and God himself can dictate what is

right and wrong and that is the only right and wrong there is. Arthur rejects this theory because

of its content and because of its stand.

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

- First, of course, we should note the historical influence religions have had on the

development of morality as well as on politics and law. The relationship is not one- sided:

morality has also influenced religion, as the current debate within the Catholic Church over the

role of women, abortion, and other social issues shows. Morality and religion have historically

influence on each other.

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

- First, the existence of morality assumes that we possess a socially acquired language

within which we think about our choices and which alternatives we ought to follow. Second, it

governs relationships among people, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Third,we are, in fact, subject of criticism by others for our actions.


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

- Yes

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

animals?

- By caring to others

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

education?

- Thinking education, that listening to others, reading about what others think and do,and reflecting within ourselves about our actions and whether we could defend them to others.

-Yes


7/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Master- and Slave- Morality --- Friedrich Nietzsche


By: James E. White




Quote:

Corruption as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts,

and that the foundation of the emotions, calledlife, is convulsed is something radically

different according to the organisation in which it manifests itself.


I expect to learn the difference between master morality and slave morality.

I expect to learn on new knowledge about philosophical theories.

Review:

In this part of the book, Friedrich Nietzsche discusses morality which he identifies that

there are two types of it the master- morality and slave- morality. In master morality, the 'power

of the will' takes place. Master morality comes from 'strong-willed' men - they create noble acts.

On the other hand, slavery morality is far different from master morality. They are the ones being

oppressed. They are considered as weak in a sense that they heed the 'morality of principles'

rather than 'morality of persons', which master morality acquires. Weak-willed, what they think

are weak are good, which in the case, they think that what are strong are bad. They maybe

called self deceptive people, but these people chose this kind of path where equality cannot

clearly be observed. What makes them different probably is how obsessed they are looking for

equality and freedom.


I have learned the difference of master- morality and slave- morality. I t gave me new

knowledge about things I didnt know before.


1.) Who is Friedrich Nietzsche?

2.) What does master morality mean?

3.) What does slave morality mean?

4.) What is to be a creator of values?

5.) What should people do about it?


8/26

Review Questions:

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

- a good and healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their will of

power which is their drive to domination and exploitation of the inferior.

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

- To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put ones will on a

par with that of others; this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among

individuals when the necessary conditions are given.

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

- Master- morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom while a slave-

morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love.

4.) Explain the Will to Power.

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


1.) Some people view Nietzsches 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, because different people has different point of view

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

- A man should do noble works to be a creator of values


9/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Trying Out Ones New Sword --- Mary Midgley


By: James E. White





I want to learn something interesting in this part, I want to gain new knowledge regarding

the moral problems that are included in this text.

Quote:

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

Review:

In this part of the book Midgley had some very strong arguments in this chapter.

Generally the idea is to revoke moral isolation. Moral isolation is the belief of anthropologists that

people cannot criticize other customs or cultures that they don't belong to. To Midgley, the idea

deprives us of moral reasoning and judgment. It was an aggressive take on the simple idea.

I think this topic can be an eye opener to people. It states that people should get to

know first a culture before judging it. We should consider moral isolationism which prohibits us to

criticize other culture if we dont understand them or we dont belong in them. It will not People

should learn from Midgleys point of view.


I have learned the meaning of the title of this subtopic of the book. Midgley has thoughtof a good example to explain her point.


1.) What is tsujigiri?

2.) Who is Mary Midgley?

3.) What is Moral Isolationism?

4.) What is a crude opinion?

5.) What is moral judgement?


10/26

Review Questions:

1.) What is moral isolationism?

- Moral isolationism is a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning.

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

- A samurai sword had to be tried out because, if it is was to work properly, it had to slice

through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Otherwise, the

warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honour, offend his ancestors, and even let down

his emperor. Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally

unable 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?

- To respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make a favourable

judgement, however general or tentative. And we do understand people in other cultures to this

extent.


1.) Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of

Nietzsche? Why or why not?

- Yes. It is not acceptable that Midgley judge Nietzsche without stating a reason.

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

Explain your answer.- Yes.


11/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Utilitarianism --- John Stuart Mill


By: James E. White





I want to learn the definition of Utilitarianism and on what is its relation to morality.

Quote:

The end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality.

Review:

This part of chapter one talks about utilitarianism, which according to Google is the idea

that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is,

its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. In this part of chapter

one, John Stuart Mill discusses what utilitarianism is all about. According to Mill, the greatest or

the ultimate goal or end is happiness meaning the end or consequence of an action would

give a person happiness. Mill also discussed two concept of utilitarianism: rule utilitarianism and

act utilitarianism. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore "based on a

difference about the proper object of consequentiality calculation specific to a case or

generalised to rules."


I have learned the definition of utilitarianism and at the same time, I have gained newknowledge because I learned new terminologies.


1.) What are Epicureans?

2.) Who is John Stuart Mill?

3.) What is Rule Utilitarianism?4.) What is Act Utilitarianism?5.) What is Hedonism?


12/26

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 as lying and stealing.- The Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle, says that the ultimate end,

with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable, whether we are

considering our own good or that of other people, is an existence exempt as far as possible from

pain, and as rich as possible from enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality.

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

- The sources of pleasure of a human being and a swine are the same, the rule of life

which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of

Epicurean life to that of the beasts is degrading because a beasts definition of pleasure is not

the same as of humans conception of happiness.

3.) How does Mill distinguish between higher and power pleasures?

- It is stated here that a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is

capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more point than one

of an inferior type which means that the higher you become the higher or harder it is to attain

pleasure.

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

- It should be the happiness not just of the person but the happiness altogether of the

people involved.

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

- Happiness might be achieved from others


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

- No, I do believe that you can attain happiness from other sources as well such as

love.

2.) Does Mill convince you that 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?

- Not.

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 to reformulate

the proof so that it is not defective?

- Mill's principle of utility is not defective.


13/26


O0B

ITETHICS


The Debate over Utilitarianism --- James Rachels


By: James E. White





I want to learn arguments that will be mentioned in this part. I want to know different

sides of the debate over utilitarianism.

Quote:

The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an

end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.

- John Stuart Mill, UtilitarianismReview:

The writer of this writing talks about the debate over utilitarianism which discusses

classical utilitarianism and its three propositions. Also he talked Hedonism and the problems

about it where hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. The writer also wrote about

justice, rights and promise. The writer also discusses rule- and act- utilitarianism.

This part of the book argues about many things that are related to utilitarianism. For me,

happiness in not only the important thing in this world. I think being happy is only a part of living

in this world. You can find happiness to thing that you mostly like doing.


I have learned other peoples opinion over utilitarianism. I have gained new knowledge.


1.) Who is James Rachel?

2.) What is rule utilitarianism?

3.) What is a classical utilitarianism?

4.) Who is Bentham?

5.) What is rule utilitarianism?


14/26

Review Questions:

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

they?- First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.

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

happiness or unhappiness that is caused.

- Third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones

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

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

problem?

- Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Moore have tried to compile short

lists of things to be regarded as good in themselves, Moore suggested that there are three

obvious intrinsic goods pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment and that right actions

are those that increase the worlds supply of such things.

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

- The objection for justice is a fair judgment. The objection for rights is not valued

especially to racisms on a community, promises are be likely to be broken in promising a fair

judgment, and rights are valued.

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

objections?

- Rule Utilitarianism is actions conform in to the rules that will lead to greater good while

Act Utilitarianism states that the right action is one that will give happiness to a person.

5.) What is the third line defense?

- Act Utilitarianism


1.) Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict withutilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

- No. People mostly follow the Divine Right Theory

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?

- Those people that do things that are against morals.

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

- Yes, I agree


15/26


O0B

ITETHICS


The Categorical Imperative --- Immanuel Kant


By: James E. White





I want to learn the meaning of categorical imperative. I want to know why it became a

moral problem.

Quote:

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should

become a universal law.

Review:

In this part of chapter one talks about the categorical imperative and other factors. Kant

believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule, the categorical imperative,

from which all our duties can be derived. Although he says that there is just one rule, he gives

different versions of it, and two of them seem to be distinct. He arrives at the supreme rule or

rules by considering the nature of the good will and duty.

When I conceive a hypothetical imperative, I do not know beforehand what it will

contain until the condition is given, but if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once

what it contains.


I already have learned the definition of Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant. I also

know now why it became a moral problem.


1.) Who is Immanuel Kant?

2.) What is Categorical Imperative?

3.) What does hypothetical imperative mean?

4.) What does categorical imperative mean?

5.) What does the good will mean?


16/26

Review Questions:

1.) Explain Kants account of good will.

- It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can betaken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement, 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 good and desirable in may respects;

2.) Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

- When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what

it will contain- until its condition is given.

- If I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains.

3.) State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of universal law), and

explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

- The first formula which is the notion of a universal law is just a part of categorical

imperative. The best example would be self-love. Self-love means to shorten our lives because of

the pains and undertakings in our lives. Then we can say is this morally wrong or morally right. The

answer would be morally wrong since it cannot act as universal law. A law can be universal law

if it applies to all the people. Who is on the right mind to commit suicide if they are happy and

even had misfortunes. Thus, universal laws are morally correct. Kant uses the rule in order to let

the people know their duties in their self and also others.

4.) State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and

end), and explain it.

- The end justifies the mean


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.

- Yes, the first formulation states that actions fall under one universal law and in some

cases that law cant be applied due to complications but the other formulation states that we

should act for the end itself.

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.

- Agree

3.) Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation)

can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?- Yes


17/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Happiness and Virtue --- Aristotle


By: James E. White





I want to learn about happiness and virtue. I want to know the definition of Aristotle to

Hapiness and Virtue.

Quote:

Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue, we must

consider the nature of virtue; for perhaps we shall thus see better the nature of happiness.

Review:

In this part of the book, Aristotle argues that all human beings seek happiness, and that

happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.

It also talks about the virtue that has two kinds: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from

training and habit, generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess

and deficiency.

For me happiness can be attained by people with their own little ways. Happiness can

also be achieved by all kinds of people not only pertaining to philosophers. I dont agree with

Aristotle that philosophers will be happier than anyone else. All kinds of people are equal. It is up

to the person whether he wants to achieve happiness in life


I have learned the definition of Aristotle to Happiness and virtue. I also have learned the

connection between the two. I also have gained new knowledge about them.


1.) Who is Aristotle?

2.) What are the two kinds of virtue?

3.) What is Happiness?

4.) Who can be happier?

5.) Why philosophers will be happier according to Aristotle?


18/26

Review Questions:

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

- According to Aristotle happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth but is an activity of

the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. Pleasure is a state of soul.

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

- According to Aristotle moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a

state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency.

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

cannot be happy?

- I think it is possible for everyone in our society to be happy in their own way. As Aristotle

said, happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth. Maybe, a person can be happy in their

different own way, we have different definitions of happiness and you can only tell if you

are happy or not.

Discussion Questions:

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

with a life of pleasure?

- Maybe Aristotle thinks that a life with pleasure makes the person crave for more than

enough and become too selfish about it. I think that is wrong with a life of pleasure.

2.) Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you

agree or not?

- I do not agree with what Aristotle claims because we are all human beings and also weare all equal yet we have different ways on how to interpret happiness.


19/26


O0B

ITETHICS


The Nature and Value of Rights --- Joel Feinberg


By: James E. White





I want to learn things about the nature and value of rights. I also want to learn new things

related to the nature and value of rights.

Quote:

If we concentrate on the whole activity of claiming, which is public, familiar, and open

to our observation, rather than on its upshot alone, we may learn more about the generic nature

of rights than we could ever hope to learn from a formal definition, even if one were possible

Review:

In this part of the book, Feinberg wants to demonstrate that rights are morally important.

To do this, he imagines Nowheresvile, a world like our own except that people do not have

rights. As a result, people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are deprived of self-

respect and human dignity. Nowheresville now can have duties of the sort imposed by positive

law. A legal duty is not something implored or advised to do something merely; it is something he

law, or n authority under the law, requires us to do whether we want to or not, under pain of

penalty.

People should practice their rights; they should not become slave to other people even

though that person has a higher rank to him.


I have learned thing related to the nature and value of rights. I have now a deeper

understanding of it.


1.) What does Nowheresville pertains to?

2.) Who is Joel Feinberg?

3.) What is personal desert?

4.) What is sovereign right- monopoly?


20/26

5.) What is the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties?

Review Questions:

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

- Nowheresville is a world like our own except that people do not have rights. As a result,

people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are deprived of self- respect and

human dignity.

2.) Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinbergs position

on this doctrine?

- This is the doctrine that all duties entail other peoples rights and all rights entail other

peoples duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights,

need concern us here.

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

in Nowheresville?

- Feinberg says that personal desert will make Nowheresville very little more appealing to

Kant, but will make it appear more familiar to us.

4.) Explain the notion of a sovereign right- monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville

according to Feinberg?

- You will recall that the subjects in Hobbes Leviathan had no rights whatever against

their sovereign. He could do as he liked with them, even gratuitously harm them, but this gave

them no valid grievance against him. The sovereign, to be sure, had a certain duty to treat his

subjects well, but this duty was owed not to the subjects directly, but to God just as we might

have a duty to a person to treat his property well, but of course no duty to the property itself but

only to the owner.

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

- As we shall see, a right is a kind of claim, and a claim is an assertion of right, so that a

formal definition of either notion in terms of the other will not get us very far.


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

- YES. Because not all people exercise their rights, they just dont care.

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

- a right is a kind of claim, and a claim is an assertion of right, so that a formal definition

of either notion in terms of the other will not get us very far.


21/26


O0B

ITETHICS


Taking Rights Seriously --- Ronald Dworkin


By: James E. White





I want to learn what Taking Rights Seriously means. I also want to understand concepts

that I will encounter in this reading.

Quote:

If the Government does not take rights seriously, then it does not take law seriously

either.

- Ronald DworkinReview:

In this reading, on Dworkins point of view, if a people have a right to do something, then

it is wrong to interfere with them. This notion of rights, Dworking believes, rests on the Kantian idea

of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community, and also on the idea of

political equality.

The language of rights now dominates political debate in the United States. The debate

does not include the issue of whether the citizens have some moral rights against their

government.


I have learned what Taking Rights Seriously means. I have learned new things that help

me understood more the topic.


1.) Who is Ronald Dworkin?

2.) What is a Kantian idea?

3.) What do controversial rights mean?

4.) Why take rights seriously?

5.) What are our rights?


22/26

Review Questions:

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

- If a people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.

2.) Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that re not

moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.

- Legal right is the right of a citizen protected by a constitution. Moral right is right of a

person according to his morality and conscience. Not all legal rights, or even constitutional

rights, represent moral rights against the government.

3.) What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens?

- The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the individual and the

demands of society- The second one is that the government inflates a right.

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

-Legal and constitutionalDiscussion Question:

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

- Yes they have the rights, as long as they know that they are doing the right thing.

2.) Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mills utilitarianism? (See the footnote about

institutional utilitarianism.)

- Yes

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

- Yes


23/26


O0B

ITETHICS


A Theory of Justice --- John Rawls


By: James E. White





I want to learn more about a theory of justice. I am hoping to learn a deeper knowledge

regarding the theory of justice.

Quote:

All social values liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-

respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these

values is to everyones advantage

Review:

In this part of the book, Rawlss theory states that there are two principles of justice: The

first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement

of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawlss theory, these are the principles that

free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of

ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

The first principle involves equal basic liberties. Each person is to have an equal right to

the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty of others. The second principle

concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. Social and economic

inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both, reasonably expected to be to everyonesadvantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all.

These principles re to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the

second. This ordering means that a departure from the institutions of equal liberty required by

the first principle cannot be justified by, or compensated for, by greater social and economic

adevantages.


I have learned may things about the theory of justice. I have learned Rawls conception

of the original position. I also have learned the two principles of justice.


24/26


1.) Who is John Rawls?

2.) What are the two principles of justice?3.) What do you mean by justice as fairness?

4.) What is the main idea of justice?

5.) Explain the theory of justice.

Review Questions:

1.) Carefully explain Rawlss conception of the original position.

- In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in

the traditional theory of the social contract.

2.) State and explain Rawlss first principle of

- The first principle involves equal basic liberties. Each person is to have an equal right to

the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty of others.

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

sacrificed?

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

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both, reasonably

expected to be to everyones advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all.


1.) On the first principle, each person has an equal right t 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 a right to engage in homosexual.- We can exercise our rights daily.

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 wouldnt they agree to an equal distribution of

wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldnt they adopt

socialism rather than capitalism? Isnt socialism just as rational as capitalism?

- YES


25/26


O0B

ITETHICS


The Need for More than Justice --- Annette Baier


By: James E. White





In this last subtopic of chapter one, I want to learn on what the need for more than

justice. I also want to learn the different perceptions of many philosophers.

Quote:

The best moral theory is one that harmonizes justice and care.

- Annette BaierReview:

According to wikipedia Justice 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.

This is the last subtopic if chapter one written by Annette Baier where according to her,

following Carol Gilligan, she distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such

as Kant an Rawls and the care perspective Gilligan found in her studies of moral development of

women. Baier argues that the justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory. It

overlooks inequalities between people, it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it

ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. The best moral theory, she claims, is onethat harmonizes justice and care.


I have learned so many things regarding this subtopic. I have known a lot of different

people that has different perspective about the need for more than justice.


1.) Who is Annette Baier?

2.) What is Justice?

3.) What is the perspective of care?


26/26

4.) What is the perspective of justice?

5.) What is the first virtue of social institutions?

Review Questions:

1.) Distinguish between the justice and care perspective. According to Gilligan, how do these

perspectives develop?

- According to Baier, care is leass authoritarian humanitarian supplement, a felt concern

for good of others and for community with them while justice is more communitarian virtues and

social ideals that are being called in to supplement it.

2.) Explain Kohlbergs 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 relative weight put on relationships between equal- The relative weight put on freedom of choice- The authority of intellect over emotions

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

- We should never forget the facts of history


1.) What does Baier means 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 oldvalues of justice, freedom, and rights?

- develop values

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?

- There is nothing wrong with it

3.) Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not

choose our parents, but still dont we have freedom of choice about many things, and isnt this

very important?

- Freedom

Documents

The Contemporary Moral Problems