Contemporary Moral Problems Chapte 1

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-

Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.

Contemporary Moral

Problems Chapter 1 Ethical Theories

By Ronald Joshua R. Adela

This book is a compilation of chapter reviews about each ethical theory in the book. Included in this

book are the answers to the review question and discussion questions given per theory.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Noblesse Oblige: To whom much is given, much is required

Page 2

Table of Contents

Dedication 3

Preference 4

Chapter 1 Ethical Theories 5

James Rachel: Egoism and Moral Sceptism 6

John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience 10

Friedrich Nietzche: Master and Slave Morality 14

Mary Midgley: Trying out One’s New Sword 17

John Stauart Mill: Utilitarianism 20

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism 24

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative 28

Aristitle: Happiness and Values 31

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights 34

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Deriously 37

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice 40

Annette Baier; The Need for More than Justice 44



Page 3

Dedication

This book is dedicated to our God who is always here with me and with everyone else and

for his great gifts for as including our talents, our strengths, our knowledge and this life that we

have now. I would also like to dedicate this paper to my family and friends who are ever supportive

to whatever I have done and I am doing. In addition, I would also like to thank them for being ever

invalidating to everything that I’ve done that are not that really good.

This book is also dedicated to the BSIS (Bachelor of Science in Information System)

students’ whom I’ve studied with in this third term school year 2009 in our school the ever green

and blazing to make their name in the history the DLS-CSB (De La Salle – Collage of Saint Benilde)

taking the subject ITETHIC (Information Technology Ethics) with our professor Mr. Paul Pajo who

is a the greatest terror with his requirements. Moreover about Mr. Pajo, I would also like to thank

him for making us realize that this that we can do and more.

I dedicate this book to may self for my hard work and dedication to do this book in order to

pass my ITETHIC class hopefully. I would also like to dedicate this book to everyone that would

read it for indeed reading such topic would help them understand life as it is and how to handle it

with the right choice and the right thought.

Once again I would like to thank everyone that I’ve mentioned and to everyone that I didn’t

for every man is a gift and a great start for any change there is. Moreover, I would like to apologize

to everyone that would read this book, for I am not really that good with words and books thus I

don’t think for any writer or a professional that they would really appreciate this but I’ve done all

that I can to finish this work and that my everyone that would read this book of main be

enlightened as did I.

To close this dedication I would just want everyone to feel free know what your are and

what you are capable of for indeed you are Gods creation.



Page 4

Preference

This book is done for the fulfillment of our not that required requirements in order to pass

our ITETHIC class. This is a compilation of many chapter reviews about everything that we need to

know about ITETHICS. As was stated this is just a glimpse of what is it ITETHIC is for the real

lessons are learned in the field. This book is the fruit of my ITETHIC class what our professor wants

as to learn and what the department directed as to learn.

This book is done by just a student of BSIS from DLS-CSB under SMIT taking the ITETHIC

who neither into books nor words but into a lot of things. His knowledge of the world that it is is

indeed a great thing and that he is doing everything in his power to make it better. The only thing

he wanted others to know is that this world is like thins because of as for what the world was what

the world is and what the world would become is all because of us. We choose our destiny and no

one can blame others on why this event is here know. The event when people looking at other

peoples bad things and not knowing that it is because of them that they are like such for no one is

caring enough to take the first step. People are forgetting what they really need and focusing on

what they want that would satisfy them for a short period of time. The only thing that this guy

wanted the world to know is that we have a short life use is wisely. Know what you really wanted,

what you really needed.

I am Ronald Joshua R. Adela a student saying “have fun be nice, and know what you need to

k now.” God bless, Take care for God cares.



Page 5

Chapter 1 Ethical Theories



Page 6

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories- James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Sceptism

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon: 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:

"To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right

for anyone in the same sort of circumstances.”

The quotation as I understood it, I can say that in any situation one should understand all of the

actor’s point of view, culture, etc for in knowing such any decision is close to getting right. This is indeed

true because one should not decide of one’s own decision alone for some this are right for some people

and wrong for others and in order to be right one should consider what is also right for the other in

order to conclude with a right decision.

Learning Expectation:

In this particular chapter I would like to learn more all about the ideas and how the people in

this particular chapter think. Moreover, I would also like to gain the knowledge that this chapter is

telling its readers that would affect the readers present and the future views of life in general.

Review:

The chapter discussed a great topic mainly Egoism. It started with the a Legend of Gyges were a

certain individual gained the greatest power one could ever have and use it in his own want creating

destruction and mayhem. The legend stated that a man if ever he has power over everything the

particular man would use it in his own advantage doing everything he wanted not minding whether it

would affect other people. The chapter shown opposing ideas about egoism and discussed them

thoroughly basing on as what was a said opposing idea. Egoism as we know it is love about self and in

this chapter it was discussed. Moreover, love to others is also discussed. The chapter presented the

topic with both sides of the argument meeting in the middle were Egoism and love for other are

combined making the right view of man being in the middle loving others in the same time loving once

self. The chapter also shown arguments about Egoism like:

The first argument was “If we describe one person’s action as selfish, and another person’s

action as unselfish we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both case, assuming the action is done

voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wanted to do.” – If one did something voluntarily to

help others he would have wanted it to do it not because he is unselfish.



Page 7

The second argument was “Since so-called unselfish actions always produces 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.”- If one did

something for another it is only because his conscience cannot take in consideration of not doing that

Moreover, the chapter also discussed some confusion about his article about Egoism like:

The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with self interest.

The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self interest or

from other regarding the motives.

The third confusion is the common but false assumption that concern for one’s own welfare is

incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others

In the end the chapter just explained that indeed man has Egoism and love for others even if

they don’t know it, but in the end it all break down to man loving one’s self or being egoistic and also

man loving other people. The part where man loves other people is explained by the reason of its own

sake or in other words man loves other people for its own sake.

What I’ve learned:

The things that I’ve learned in the chapter is a great deal in any once decision making, for it

stated that on any decision one should first know the parts or the part of all the users or people included

or affected in the decision before making any conclusion. Moreover, the chapter also stated that

everyone has Egoism in them, for everyone should love themselves. Also everyone cares about other

people even if they don’t know it and this is explain by the reason of it’s own sake. AS a conclusion the

chapter stated that one should both care about others and also for one’s self, for its extremes mainly

being egoistic or being a martyr is bad. One should always be in the mean or median to be in the right

path.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 8 Ethical Theories - Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

Integrative Questions

James Rachels is a University professor of what subject?

Where did James Rachels thought?

Where in Alabama does the University of Alabama Locates?

What are the books that James Rachels wrote that are stated in the chapter?”

What are the two popular views used to attack conventional Morality that James Rachels examines?

Review Questions:



Page 8

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

The story is all about Gyges a shepherd who found a ring on a fissure opened by an earth

quake. In addition, the ring would make its wearer invisible. What Gyges did was, entered the

palace, seduced the queen, murdered the king and took over the thrown. The question that was

raised was “What reason is there for him to continue being “moral” when it is clearly not to his own

advantage to do so?”

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

To distinguish these types of egoism we need to know the definition of the terms which are

first the psychological egoism that is having the motivation of doing something benefiting once self.

It is done by doing things to others keeping in mind once own advantage. In the other hand ethical

egoism is having the motivation of doing something benefiting once self without doing anything for

other people.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and

how does he reply on them?

The first argument was “If we describe one person’s action as selfish, and another person’s

action as unselfish we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both case, assuming the action is done

voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wanted to do.” – If one did something

voluntarily to help others he would have wanted it to do it not because he is unselfish.

The second argument was “Since so-called unselfish actions always produces 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.”- If one did

something for another it is only because his conscience cannot take in consideration of not doing

that particular thing. Or in other words one would so something not because one wanted it but

because one will gain something desirable in the end.

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

egoism?

The three commonplace confusions that Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism

are

• The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with self interest.

• The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self interest or

from other regarding the motives.

• The third confusion is the common but false assumption that concern for one’s own welfare is

incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others



Page 9

5. State the argument by saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept

this argument?

“To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is

right for anyone in the same sort of circumstances.”

Rachel disagreed to the argument for he knew that we can maintain ethical egoism by

interpreting the egoist position in sympathetic way. The person should put in mind a certain kind of

world not minding others.

6. According to Rachels. Why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How

can that egoist reply?

The reason why we shouldn’t hurt others is because the welfare of people are valued by

others for its own sake and not for other reasons. Moreover, it is for the welfare of mankind.

Discussion Questions:

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

exactly is his answer?

Rachel indeed answered the question raised by Glaucon, and his answer was yes. Us as

an individual needs to be moral not only for ourselves but also for others as well, for as stated in

the chapter all of us as equal and that we should treat each other as what how we treat our

selves.

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

even people they don’t know?

As stated in the chapter the answer to the question whether genuine egoist are rare or

not based on Rachels claims is indeed yes. This is because there is a big difference between a

genuine egoist and a simple egoist that most of the people have. About the question whether

most of the people care about others even people they don’t know, I can say that it is definitely

a fact for people have in them a great relation to others even if they don’t know about it.

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

others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

As I have learned acting for the sake for the benefit of others and never to one self is an

immoral act though acting only for one self is also immoral one should balance the one’s action

for the benefit of others in the same time for the benefit of one’s self. In addition, one should

not be selfish and one should not be a martyr.



Page

10

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories- John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience




Quote:

"Conscience is "social" not in the sense that morality is determined by surveying what others in the

society thinks"

The given quotation from the chapter only states that indeed conscience is social for conscience

is always encountered in society and that in everything we do we do it in our community affecting

others making it social in it act. Though we all thought about it as being a states were only one self is

included. As what was discussed in the previews chapters mainly “Egoism” man act for other for its own

sake and everything a man do always has its reason for others and for the betterment of his society.





Review:

The chapter discussed the topic about religion, morality and conscience. Based on John Arthur

morality tends to evaluate the behavior of others and to feel guilt which is our conscience at certain

actions when we perform them. On the other hand religion typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs

about the supernatural, institutional form and authority’s texts. With such we can say that indeed

religion is not necessary for morality. Another thing is about the Divine Command Theory of ethics which

states that an act is either moral or immoral solely because God either commands us to do it or prohibits

us from doing it, respectively. Which regard to the ethical theory John Arthur stated his thoughts that it

really doesn’t explain those important points given by the command theory with the given explanations.

Moreover, religion and morality are independent of each other. Another topic that was discussed in the

chapter was about the relationship of morality and religion and it was stated that the relationship

between the two is not one sided. The chapter also stated that morality has also influenced religion, as

the current debate within the Catholic Church over the role of women, abortion, and many more issues.

With such we can say that morality and religion have historically exerted an influence to each other. The

chapter also stated that religion is necessary to provide moral motivation. Indeed it is great that this

chapter discussed the relationship of morality and religion including conscience for every person should

know this in order to help them in their every day decisions.



Page

11


The things that I’ve learned in this chapter are all about religion, morality and conscience there

relations and their connection. I’ve learned that religion and morality are indeed connected and that

they are affecting throughout the history that indeed affected the lives of every person. I also learned a

thing or two about The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is either moral or

immoral solely because God either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories- James Rachels: Egoism and Moral

Sceptism


What religious and motivation guidance stated in the chapter?

What does the Divine and Command theory states?

What does the phrase "Morality is Social" mean?

What are the relationship of Morality and Religion?

Do Religion, Morality and Conscience have any connection?

Review Questions:

1. According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different?

Arthur said that morality and religion are different, morality tend to evaluate even without

even pressing the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions when we perform them. And

so this means that morality deals with of refers to the quality of goodness and badness of human

act. And it also refers to the rightness or wrongness of human acts as they do conform or do not

conform to the standards or human behavior specifically actions. In contrary religion involves

worship, prayer, institutional form, and authority’s texts. Another difference would be the practices

of morality involving our attitudes towards various forms of behavior typically expressed using the

notion of rule, rights and obligations. While Religion involves beliefs in supernatural powers that

created and perhaps control nature, the tendency to worship and pray those supernatural forces or

beings and presence of organizational structures and authorities text.

2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?

According to the chapter religious motives are far from peoples motives thus the motives of

doing the right thing would not need religion anymore. Although many said we need it, we really

don’t, for in making decisions we don’t really pretty much use religion.

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



Page

12

Religion is not necessary for a source of moral knowledge for we leaned them in different

ways though they are not afar and we can still say that they are inter connected moral knowledge is

different from religion and that we shouldn’t intertwine the two from each other.

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

”The divine command theory of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely

because God either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On The divine

command theory the only thing that makes an act morally wrong is that God prohibits doing it, and

all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that God prohibits torture.” Arthur rejected this

theory because according to him, suppose the divine command theory is correct, so that actions are

right just because they are commanded by god. The same of course, can be said about those deeds

that we believe are wrong. If god hadn’t commanded us to do such thing, they would not be wrong.

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

Arthur said that morality and religion are connected in some ways and it was proven in

some arguments handled then mainly the role of women and abortion. The two build each other

historically in a personal level but also the two can be sometimes oppose each other.

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

Dewey indeed stated that morality is social and for Arthur he believes that aside from

morality influence by religion and vice versa the morality’s social character extends deeper even

than that and he stated it as followed:

• First, of course, the existence of morality assumes that we possess a socially required language

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

• Second, Morality is social in that it governs relationships among people, defining our

responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Morality provides the standards we rely on in gauging

with family, lovers, friends, fellow citizens and even strangers.

• Third, morality is social in the sense that we are, in fact, subject to criticisms by others of our

actions. We discuss with others what we do, and often hear them concerning whether our

decisions were acceptable. Blame and praise are central features of morality.

• Fourth, idea depends on appreciating the fact that to think from the moral view point. As

supposed to the selfish one, for instance, demands that we reject our private subjective

perspective of other, envisioning hoe they might respond to various choices we might make.


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



Page

13

Arthur did not refute the divine command theory; he just explained his thoughts about it,

for it really doesn’t explain those important points given by the command theory with the given

explanations.

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

animals?

If morality is social then we can have obligations to nonhuman animals by caring to other

people and by following a certain belief.

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

education?

According to Dewey there is an important sense that in which morality not only can be

taught but must be. Besides early moral training, moral thinking depends on pure ability to imagine

others’ reactions and to imaginatively put ourselves into their shoes. In addition, our college ethics

class count as moral education because according to the chapter knowing and studying ethics and

applying it to our daily lives counts as a moral education.



Page

14

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Friedrich Nietzche: Master and Slave Morality




Quote:

"The superior person follows a master morality that emphasizes power strength egoism and freedom as

distinguished from a slave morality that calls for weakness submission sympathy and love."

This great idea by Friedrich Nietzche indeed reminds me of the Nazis a great search for power

and the ruling of the superior being in the society. This is such an intriguing topic were the powerful is

the one’s in control and that the weak are the one’s submitting to them. I think this idea of this quote

indeed is a questionable for today’s people for I can say that the idea of the people for the society is for

every person being equal in the eyes of God.





Review:

The chapter discussion went around the thought of Friedrich Nietzche’s idea about the people

allowing superior individual to exercise or practice their will to power or in other words their power

towards domination and exploitation of inferior. The idea follows the thought of the Healthy society

should allow superior individuals to exercise their will of power their drive toward domination and

exploitation of inferior and also the thought that Slave morality is essentially the morality to utility. The

chapter discussed all about morality and its two types mainly the slave- morality and master-morality. It

was stated that master morality is being the superior person that emphasizes power strength egoism

and freedom as distinguished from a slave-morality that calls for weakness submission sympathy and

love. The chapter also discussed something about injury, violence and exploitation. To refrain mutually

from injury, from violence, from exploitation and puts one’s will on a part with that to others: this may

result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are

given( namely, actual similarity of individual s in amount of force and degree of worth and their co-

relation within one organization) As soon however as one wished to take this principal more generally

and if possible even as the fundamental principal of society it would immediately disclose of what it

really is namely a will to the denial of life a principle of dissolution and decay. Moreover, the chapter

also stated something about exploitation that exploitation does not belong to a depraved to imperfect



Page

15

and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function it is a

consequence of the intrinsic will to power which is precisely the will to life.


The things that I’ve learned in this chapter are all about the idea of Friedrich Nietzche of of man

allowing superior individual to exercise or practice their will to power or in other words their power

towards domination and exploitation of inferior that dwelled in the ideas of master- morality and slave-

morality. The ideas of injury, violence and exploitation were also discussed with regard to the said

morality types.

Citation: N/A


Given in the chapter who are the Master and Slave in Morality?

What is the relationship of injury, violence and exploitation?

Based on the idea of Friedrich Nietzsche what is Slave and Morality?

What was the idea proposed by Friedrich Nietzsche?

What is the difference and connection of the salve- morality and master- morality?

Review Questions:

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

Friedrich Nietzche characterizes a good and healthy society should allow superior individuals

with their “will to power” in other words their drive toward domination and exploitation of the

inferior.

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

Friedrich Nietzche view of injury, violence and exploitation are civilisations and the

revolution of power within the society.

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

We can distinguish master- morality and slave –morality by their description. The master-

morality being the superior person that emphasizes power strength egoism and freedom as

distinguished from a slave-morality that calls for weakness submission sympathy and love.

4. Explain the Will to Power.



Page

16

The will to power is the drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior as was

stated in the chapter based from Friedrich Nietzche.


1. Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some

have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why

not?

The view of the people about Friedrich Nietzche writings as harmful and even dangerous for

it was said that it is inspiring the Nazism in their location was indeed justified, for the reason of the

power of his writings towards getting power and as we all know Nazism is all about that.

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

The phrase "a creator of value” only means to be the one who will initiate the actual

realization and consideration of one man’s values.



Page

17

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Mary Midgley: Trying out One's New Sword




Quote:

"Ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them."

Indeed the given statement above is indeed true and it doesn’t just apply to discipline and

devotion but also for any situation there is that needs acceptance and adaptation. Indeed in order for

one to gain something or adopt something one should accept it in order for the gaining or the

adaptation to occur, for indeed the only people that can control ourselves are all as. Moreover, as the

saying says what we where, what we are and what we oath to be are all based on our decision. No one

can be blamed of what we are but as and what we accept or adopt but as.





Review:

The chapter discussed a great idea which is the idea of moral isolationism which was stated as

the view of anthropologist and others that cannot criticize cultures we do not understand. She argues

that moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralist because it forbids any moral reasoning.

The explanation was further shown by using an example from the Japanese which is the custom of

tsujigiri were in one is to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer (the word is tsujigiri literally

“crossroads-cut) a samurai sword had to be tried because if it 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 endure his honor offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. So

tests were needed and wayfarers had to be expended. Many ideas were formed and shown in the topic

mainly Judging simply means forming an opinion, expressing it if it is called for, Moral Isolationism

forbids us to from any opinions on these matters. It is a ground for doing so is that we don't understand

then, the power of judgment is in fact not a luxury not perverse indulgence of the self righteous, Our

involvement from moral isolationism does not flow from apathy but from a rather acute concern about

human hypocrisy and other forms of wickedness and many more. But the main idea of this chapter was

for the people to know that in order for one to judge the other one should be in the others place in

order for one to know the others situation and that they would understand them for. After that



Page

18

situation one can then judge t the other person according to the things that they know being the other

person.


I have learned many things in this chapter and I can say that they are great once. The idea of

moral isolationism is indeed great I was always intrigued with the great culture of Japan for they are

almost all of the history on man and still building their name in this present world. I also learned many

things about people’s judgment about things in this chapter mainly understanding the situation of the

person to be judge in order to judge them correctly.

Citation: N/A

Integrative Questions:

Who are the Master and Slave in Morality?

What is Master and Slave Morality is all about?

What is Slave and Morality?

What is Master Morality?

What the difference and connection of the two?

Review Questions:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

Moral isolationism as was stated in this chapter is the view of anthropologists and others

that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand.

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

custom?

The Japanese custom of tsujigiri is to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer (the

word is tsujigiri literally “crossroads-cut) a samurai sword had to be tried because if it 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 endure his honor offend his ancestors and even

let down his emperor. So tests were needed and wayfarers had to be expended.

• Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to

criticize us?



Page

19

• Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? If I want to say that

the samurai culture has many virtues, or to praise the South Americans Indians, am I prevented

from doing that my outside status?

• What is involved in judging? Judging simply means forming opinions and expressing it if it is

called for. Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for

doing so is that we don’t understand them.

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

The wrong thing about moral- isolationism according Mary Midgley is that it falsely

assuming 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?

Mary Midgley thought of the basis for criticizing other culture is done by being a part of it,

for in doing such the one criticizing would know what they are criticizing and that they have profs

and evidence of such criticism.


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

Nietzsche? Why or why not?

The thing that I can say about the idea of Mary Midgley saying that Friedrich Nietzsche is an

immoralist is that it is not an accurate and fair assessment. It is not accurate for Mary Midgley is not

like Friedrick Nietzsche and that one cannot judge a person simply by what they think or what they

know about them. It is not a fair assumption for Mary Midgley and Friedrick Nietzsche have different

point of view thus there are time their ideas would collide. The only way to handle this situation is

only for them to respect each other’s view.

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

Explain your answer.

I can say that I don’t agree with the idea of Mary Midgley claiming that the idea of separate

and unmixed cultures is unreal because for one reason our cultures that we have back then and

even now are all separate from each other and unmixed one should just deal with it and know why

it is like such.



Page

20

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism




Quote:

"Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole"

Indeed when we talk about happiness we can spot things like live life, family, or any thing material. But

as was stated in this quotation happiness is not just an abstract idea but a concrete whole. Happiness

can never be found with anything rather than the true happiness of once contentment.


In this particular chapter I would like to learn more all about the ideas and how the people in this

particular chapter think. Moreover, I would also like to gain the knowledge that this chapter is telling its

readers that would affect the readers present and the future views of life in general.

Review:

The chapter has a very intriguing topic mainly utilitarianism. I grow up thinking that indeed

material things are not mans main source of happiness but here in this chapter it says otherwise. It was

stated that utilitarianism is an instrument in maximizing pleasures. It tends to increase or maximize

pleasures or happiness or to prevent pain and unhappiness. Proposes that all punishment involves pain

and is therefore evil; it ought only to be used so far as it promises to exclude some greatest evil. This

was stated by John Stuart Mill and his proof stated that The principle of utility according to John Stuart

Mill states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as

they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises

some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on

Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and

experience of pleasure or happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving

our central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experience

pleasure when we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such as eating, drinking, and

having sex. We also experience pleasure when we perform certain intellectual activities, such as reading

a philosophy textbook, playing guitar, or drawing a picture. We sometimes, but not always, experience

pleasure when we do the right thing. Conversely, we experience pain when these functions are left

unfulfilled. Or in simple words we can reconstruct the principle of utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill by

saying that happiness might be achieved from others.




Page

21

In this chapter indeed a very intriguing idea is created and I never thought of it that way thus I

never thought this idea is possible. I learned many things about utilitarianism and indeed it is great and

should be taken in mind by everyone but the main idea of this chapter is that happiness can be achieved

from others based on what John Stuart Mill has stated. I can relate this topic to the previews one mainly

the topic about egoism were the love for self is gain through others.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories- James Rachels: Egoism and Moral

Sceptism


Based on the chapter what is the "Principle of Utility" is all about?

What was the idea proposed by John Stuart Mill?

What does the chapter mean of higher or lower pleasure?

What are the similarities of the two pleasures that were given in the chapter?

What s the relation of happiness to pleasure.

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 is also known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle” were All other

things are desirable is an exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments,

both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, being the preference felt by those who in

their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their self consciousness. The principle of

utility can also be stated as an instrument in maximizing pleasures. It tends to increase or maximize

pleasures or happiness or to prevent pain and unhappiness. Proposes that all punishment involves

pain and is therefore evil; it ought only to be used so far as it promises to exclude some greatest

evil. This principle can justify lying and stealing for as stated in the description utilitarianism

maximizes the pleasure of a person.

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

John Stuart Mill defended himself again and again pointing out his point of view stating that

the charged could not be gainsaid, but would then no longer imputation; for if the sources of

pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good

enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to

that of beast is felt a degrading, precisely because a beast pleasures do not satisfy a human beings

conceptions of happiness.



Page

22

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

John Stuart Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasure by the pleasure it actually

brings and how we prioritize things.

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

According to John Stuart Mill the happiness that should be considered is the happiness of

our own and the happiness of others.

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

The principle of utility according to John Stuart Mill states that actions or behaviors are right

in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or

pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of

associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a

hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or

happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our central nervous

system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experience pleasure when we

perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such as eating, drinking, and having sex. We also

experience pleasure when we perform certain intellectual activities, such as reading a philosophy

textbook, playing guitar, or drawing a picture. We sometimes, but not always, experience pleasure

when we do the right thing. Conversely, we experience pain when these functions are left

unfulfilled. Or in simple words we can reconstruct the principle of utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill

by saying that happiness might be achieved from others.


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

If I am ask whether happiness is nothing more than pleasure and absence of pain I would

definitely say No, for in my opinion happiness is being contented and realization of contentment

being present in once life.

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

I can say that John Stuart Mill did not convince me that the so- called pleasure are better

than the lower once for different people prefer different things and that no person is the same as

the other. Different people have different priorities and different likes and dislikes.

3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of

utility.” Is this true or not?

I don’t think that John Stuart Mill saying “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read

the complete spirit of the ethics of utility” is a fact.



Page

23

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do

you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to

reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

The thoughts of the commentators about John Stuart Mill proof is indeed true for I can say

that the proofs of John Stuart Mill has lack things that could back up the ideas.



Page

24

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism




Quote:

“The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other

things desirable as means to that end."

I am not a materialistic kind of guy thus I have never thought of this saying being possible but as

I went through the chapter I understood relevant information about such topic. In the book I spotted

this quotation and I can say that I really intrigued my about what it really meant and that as I’ve

understood it definitely a great idea. I can say that the quotation states that man’s desire are the things

that can make him happy and that as a result it is stated as an end, after that that desire for such thing

ends there and then for unless one have the thing or any particular state for any matter that’s when one

realize his true want and desire.





Review:

The chapter indeed tackled a great topic and had great conversation and debates. I can say that

the debate was indeed reasonable for one can never any opinion of any free man. I can say that the

argument is a great lesson for everyone and it should be used the ideas tackled in this chapter in their

everyday lives, for we never know whether what we are doing or what we know are indeed right

thought I am not stating that any bodies act or believes are for what I know is that some things are right

for other people and wrong for others. I have learned this topic from the previous topic mainly Mary

Midgleys topic of Trying out one’s new sword chapter 4. This chapter discussed the topic Utilitarianism

and James Raches debate about it. In the chapter it was stated that Classical Utilitarianism the theory

defended by Bentham and Mill can be summarized in three propositions: First actions are to be judge

right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matter. Right actions are simply those

that have the best consequences. Second, in accessing consequences the only thing that matter is the

amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Third in calculating the happiness or unhappiness

that will cause no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else. Moreover, the

rule- utilitarianism and act utilitarianism was also stated in the chapter saying that rule-utilitarianism has



Page

25

no difficulty coping with the three utilitarian arguments where as an act utilitarian faced with situation

would be tempered to bear false witness against the innocent man because the consequence of that

particular act would be good.

Another topic that was also discussed in the chapter was that of the objections about justice,

right and promises that are connected to the topics in the chapter where as the most fundamental ideas

underlying the theory is that in order to determine whether an action would be right we should look at

what will happen as a result of doing it. Justice-the argument is only if someone were in the position

then on utilitarian grounds he should bear false witness against the innocent person. Therefore

according to utilitarianism, lying is a thing to do. But the argument continues it would be wrong to bring

about the execution of the innocent man. Therefore utilitarianism which implies it would be right must

be incorrect. This argument illustrates one of the theories most serious shortcomings; namely that is

incompatible with the ideal justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly. According o their

individual needs and merits. Right- utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if the produce a

favorable happiness over unhappiness. It is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was

caused. In that case the utilitarian conclusions apparently would be that their actions are morally all

right. Promise- there is an important general lesson to be learned from this argument. Why is

utilitarianism vulnerable to this sort of criticism? It is because the only kinds of considerations that the

theory holds relevant to determine the rightness of actions are considerations having to do with their

future. The chapter discussed many more things like Hedonism and many more arguments about

utilitarianism.


I was really amazed in this topic for it shown me an idea that at first a impossible thought for me

at the very beginning but in the end it shown me its great idea and its great help in my everyday

activities and decisions. The things that I’ve learned in this chapter are all about the topic of

Utilitarianism and James Rachels argument about it. It mainly dwelled in this topic but the topic of

justice, rights and promises was also stated and connected with it. Moreover, Hedonism is also stated

that backed up utilitarianism against James Rachels debate about it.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories- Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s

New Sword


What is the standard of the topic utilitarianism?

As stated in the chapter what is utilitarian doctrine?

State the ideas of happiness.

Based in the chapter what are right actions?



Page

26

Do happiness matters?

Review Questions:

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

they?

According to James Rachel the classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three

prepositions mainly

• Justice

• Rights

• Backward-looking reasons

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

problem?

As was stated in the chapter the idea that happiness is the one ultimate good (unhappiness

the one ultimate evil) is known as HEDONISM. Hedonism is perennially popular theory that goes

back at least as far as ancient Greeks. Its beautiful simplicity, it expresses the intuitively plausible

notion that things are good or bad only on account of the way they make us feel. We value all sorts

of things, including artistic creativity and friendship, for their own sakes. It makes us happy to have

them, but only because we already think them good. Therefore we think it a misfortune to lose

them, independently of whether or not the loss is accompanied by unhappiness. Happiness is not

something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated

only means on bringing it about. Instead, happiness is a response we have to attainment of things

that we recognize as goods, independently and their own right. Today most philosophers recognized

the truths of this. There are not many contemporary hedonists. Those sympathetic to utilitarianism

have therefore sought a way to formulate their view without assuming a hedonistic account and

good evil.

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

The objections about justice, right and promises are that they are unrealistic and do not

describe situations that come up in the real world.

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

objections?

To distinguish between rule and act utilitarianism we should understand what they are first.

Rule-utilitarianism has no difficulty coping with the three anti utilitarian arguments. Act-utilitarian,



Page

27

faced with the situation described, would be tempted to bear false witness against the innocent

man because the consequences of that particular act would be good.

5. What is the third line of defence?

The third line of defense stated in the chapter is pointing out that the classical theory is at

odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on.


1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with

utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

The thought of Smart defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they

conflict with utilitarianism is not acceptable because not all beliefs are the same from one another

so it really depends on how one consider other believes and many more conditions.

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?

The people that should be considered I think are everyone because all of us are created by

God and that everyone should play a part of the world that God created for us not only for God but

also for us.

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

agree?

I do agree about James Rachel claiming that merit should be given moral consideration

independent of utility.



Page

28

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative




Quote:

“A good will is good in itself, not just for what it produces”

I can definitely state that his quotation is one of the most incredible quotation I’ve read in this

book. Moreover, not only I agree to the stated statement because of the chapter decision. I also agreed

with t his statement ever since. This is something that I grow up with for indeed a good this is in itself

good and not because of what it end up with or what it started with. Everyone should consider this

quotation for indeed it is a fact and that it is really a great help for everyone’s decision making and

activity formulation, for this guide can always show anyone the right way.





Review:

The chapter discussed a great idea about morality and some of them are things that I can relate

to for the reason of I to believe in such ideas. The chapter dwelled on the topic good will that was stated

by Emmanuel Gant that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which

can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill. For without the principles of good things

may become exceedingly bad; and the very coolness of scoundrel makes them not merely more

dangerous but also more immediately more abominable in our eyes than we should have taken them to

be without; A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness of

attaining some purposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself.

Imperatives mainly categorical imperative and Hypothetical imperative was also discussed and

was distinguished from each other saying that Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant

distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives

tell you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal: “If you want to have enough money to buy a

new phone, and then get a job”; “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”. Hypothetical

imperatives only apply to people who want to achieve the goal to which they refer. If I don’t care about

having enough money for a new phone, then “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone,

then get a job” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason to get a job. If I don’t mind going to prison,



Page

29

then “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason

not to steal cars. Morality, according to Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the

assumption that we want to achieve a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked.

Moral behavior isn’t about staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical

imperative. Other discussions were also shown in the chapter mainly formulations of categorical

imperatives using universal law and language of mean and end and many more topics.


The things that I’ve learned in the chapter were definitely something that everyone should know

mainly the idea of good will. Indeed a good will is good in itself, not just for what it produces. Some

other things was also thought like the knowledge of the will being good if it acts from duty (and other

moral motives), and not just in conformity with duty. And the grocer was also thought saying that they

are the once giving correct change from a sense of fairness (and not from fear of getting caught) has a

good will. Imperative was also discussed stating they meanings and showing things that distinguished

them from each other. Moreover, categorical imperative was also discussed further showing its different

formulations.

Citation: N/A

Integrative Questions:

What are the stated gifts of fortune?

As stated in the chapter what is the good will?

What are the duties of good will?

Are there any motives of duty?

Does a good will give great results?

Review Questions:

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

Emmanuel Kant accounted good will as the only thing possible to conceive in this world.

Moreover, a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness of

attaining some purposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

We can distinguish hypothetical imperative from categorical imperative by stating their

condition of knowing. First the Hypothetical imperative does not know beforehand what will contain

anything for any matter until its condition is given not like the categorical imperative which is the

second one where as one already know instantly what that particular thing contains.



Page

30

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universe law),

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

The first formulation of the categorical imperative using the notion of a universal law was

explained by Emmanuel Kant using examples. He stated that a “moral proposition that is true must

be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person doing the

moral deliberation. One could not morally command others by saying "It is wrong for you to murder,

but it is not wrong for me to murder" because that would be a hypothetical imperative: Effectively

saying "If I am person A, murder is right; if I am person B, murder is wrong". As a conclusion a moral

commandment must have universality. Emmanuel Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties

towards self and others by simply making them realize this though.

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

ends). And explain it.

Using the languge of means and ends we can state the second version of categorical

imperative by stating that we are not merely subjective ends whose existence as an object of our

actions has a value for us: they are objective ends – that is, things whose existence is in itself an end,

and indeed an end such that in its place we can put no other end to which they should serve simply

as means.


1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule,

or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

I can say that according to what I’ve here the two versions of the categorical imperative are

different rules though I cannot justify such for even if I read the selection lack of information about

the stated words are not yet that clear to me.

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 don’t agree with the stated statement about Emmanuel Kant saying that an action that is

done from the motivation of duty has no moral worth for even if the action is not yet done we

cannot say that motive of duty has no moral truth already, many things should be considered first.

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

can be used to justify non-moral actions. Is this a good criticism?

Yes it is a good criticism.



Page

31

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue




Quote:

“Each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has

been educated in a subject is a food judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-around

education is a good judge in general.”

The quote stated above only states that any person whose knowledge are engage in a particular

subject is indeed a good judge or simple good in that particular subject and if any person is engage in a

wider knowledge will indeed be a good judge or simply good in that particular wider knowledge.





Review:

The chapter discussed broad topics for such a narrow discussion. With only ten pages the article

about Aristotle discussed how to make any decisions in any part of our lives. Indeed making decisions

are included in al of the parts of our lives for what we were, what we are and what we oath to be are all

based on our decisions in live. Aristotle stated in this chapter the quotation stated above which is “Each

man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been

educated in a subject is a food judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-around

education is a good judge in general” which is a great deal in this chapter for the answer to any decision

in any part of our lives is as stated by Aristotle the mean of any decisions or the middles decision. The

middle decision as stated in the chapter is the mean between the excess and the deficiency. With this

the quotation stated by Aristotle about the knowledge of man would be taken in mind in making

decisions, for in order to know the two sides of any decision one should have a broader knowledge

about things. As a conclusion we can definitely say that in order to know the right decision one should

have a general knowledge or simply the knowledge of both the extremes in any decision in order for him

to analyze or figure out the mean of that particular decision. As a result the right thing or decision in

view of Aristotle’s saying would be met.




Page

32

The things that I’ve learned in this particular chapter is that for Aristotle’s in order to find the

correct view about any situations or decisions there is one should always consider the mean or the

middle of any conclusion. The middle conclusion is the mean between the excess and deficiency. In

addition to the statements given, the solution of the mean has its exceptions in some ways where the

act is indeed a bad thing.

Citation: N/A


Who was Aristotle’s teacher?

According to the chapter what is happiness?

What are the two kinds of Virtue?

What is Moral Virtue?

What does Intellectual Virtue produces?

Review Questions:

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

pleasure?

Happiness is what all human being seeks that is not pleasure, honor or wealth but an activity

of the soul in accordance with virtue that can be moral which is the state of character that is a mean

between vices of excess and deficiency and also intellectual that is produces the most perfect

happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation. Happiness is a virtues activity of

the soul, of a certain kind.

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

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. For example the mean between eating too much

or obesity and not eating at all has the mean of just having the right meal with the proper diet.

Another example is when a person is spending too much and a person who is not spending at all has

the mean of just spending the money for important thing only.

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

happy?

It is possible for everyone to be happy if everyone accepts the reality of true happiness and

for me it is true for us humans we are the only once living that can be happy for we can choose and

interact with each other to do virtues things and that as was said before happiness is an activity of

the soul in accordance with virtue that can be moral which is the state of character that is a mean



Page

33

between vices of excess and deficiency and also intellectual that is produces the most perfect

happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation and also happiness is a virtues

activity of the soul, of a certain kind. With it we can say that indeed if everyone realizes the true

meaning of happiness everyone in our society can be happy.

Discussion Questions

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

with a life pleasure

The true happiness according to the chapter is an activity of the soul in accordance with

virtue that can be moral which is the state of character that is a mean between vices of excess and

deficiency and also intellectual that is produces the most perfect happiness and is found in the

activity of reason or contemplation and also happiness is a virtues activity of the soul, of a certain

kind. With it we can say that indeed if everyone realizes the true meaning of happiness everyone in

our society can be happy. And pleasure temporary happiness that are in the extremes of excess and

deficiency which is like the lives of animals that only leave to do a certain purpose a and eventually

die. A man who lives his life with pleasure has no difference with beast that leave to eat and survive.

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

agree or not?

The philosopher according to the chapter seeks the things that an ordinary person would

not think or in other words the missing link to the leaves of everyone. The knowledge a philosopher

is indeed so broad that is different from a normal person that has a limited mind that was learned

from many things being knowledgeable about a specific thing not like the mind of a philosopher who

has the general knowledge. I agree to the idea of Aristotle about the philosopher being the happiest

persons in the world though everyone is born philosophers. The lives of philosophers are to search

the real meaning of our lives and that there are no state happier than knowing the real meaning of

once life.



Page

34

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights




Quote:

In sense yes and in a sense no”

Indeed in our ever day lives the yes and no answers are always present every conflicting with

one another. IN this given quotation I can say that a particular question was answered with two

conflicting answers. With the first glimpse for a man who just started reading this selection in this

chapter thee shall not think of it as a reasonable answer to any question but if one have had read the

previews chapters mainly the part of Mary Midgley’s Trying out One's New Sword one could indeed

understand such answer as a reasonable one. Indeed one should realize that the right things for one

person can be a wrong thing for another thus making this answer could be possible for any question

with opposing sides colliding.





Review:

This part of the books is indeed interesting for it really concerned about the well being of once

life for it tackle the issue of rights and equality. As we all know in this world of ours we are all under the

law and no one can be above it, e very body has rights and with it everyone should treat everyone else

as equal as they think they are. The chapter discussed this so called right of everyone that indeed

everyone needs. The world of ours was also compared to a different world names Nowhereville and the

comparison is as follows Nowheresville is a place where no one has the right and no one is treated

equally which we can say different from what our place right now in which rights are considered and

rights are given equally to all. This is the place that needs to know rights and implements right equally as

well.

In every once life and in the world today the word sovereignty is a great word for it is the word

that explains the fact the all of as are equal under God and that everyone has their rights. With such a

discussion was made upon this issue that sates that The sovereign to be sure had a certain duty to treat

his subjects as well, but this duty was owed not to the subject directly, but to god just as wee might

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



Page

35

its owner. Thus, while the sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could commit no

wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims against his conduct.

Genuine sovereign monopoly they will do al those things too, and thus incur genuine obligations will not

be owed directly to promise creditors, parents, and the like but rather to god alone, or to the members

of some elite or to a single sovereign under god. Other this about rights was also discussed in the

chapter that would indeed state that everyone is equal under God and it is a great privilege for as.


I have learned many things about this rights in this chapter and I encourage the people that are

reading this chapter to know this by heart for with such knowledge they would know the this and the

activates they can do and can no do. Also with such knowledge they would know the things that they

have that they can control and manipulate and the things that they don’t have and cannot manipulate.

The chapter thought is readers many things about rights including claim rights, sovereignty, personal

deserts, and specially their duties.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Mary Midgley: Trying out One's

New Sword


As stated in the chapter was is a personal desert?

Where is Nowheresville?

What is Nowheresville?

What is Sovereignty?

What is claim-rights?

Review Questions:

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

As was stated in the chapter Nowheresville is a place where no one has the right and no one

is treated equally that is somehow different from what our world is right now in which rights are

considered and rights are given equally to all. It is somehow different for we cannot deny that

though in our world people have rights some people tend to deprive other people from having them

making themselves above that said right or the law.

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

on this doctrine?



Page

36

The doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties is the doctrine that all duties

entail other people’s rights and all other rights entail other people’s duties. Joel Feinberg position on

the doctrine is that great quotation “in a sense, it is correct and in a sense, it isn’t.”

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

in Nowheresville?

The concept of personal desert would word in Nowheresville for it would give the people

there rights that is not present in the place.

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

according to Feinberg?

The notion of sovereign right- monopoly is the sovereignty that had a certain duty to treat

his subjects as well, but this duty was owed not to the subject 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 its owner. Thus, while the sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could

commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims

against his conduct. Genuine sovereign monopoly they will do all those things too, and thus incur

genuine obligations will not be owed directly to promise creditors, parents, and the like but rather

to God alone, or to the members of some elite or to a single sovereign under god. Moreover, this

would definitely work in the Nowheresville according to Feiberg for as he stated the place

Nowheresville has no equality and by implementing such would give the place equality and would

make people there treat other people we and equal.

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

As stated in the chapter claim- rights is as what it read the right to claim their our right, for

everyone has his own right. In addition a person can only have one right. Moreover, Joel Feinberg

stated that this is morally important for everyone needs their right for without it one can be abuse

and would be treated unwell.


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

I can say that the was brought by Joel Feinberg would be not that convincing at first but as

you understand his point one would greatly know the view he is getting at for he stated the

important things about the are all about the rights of any individual.

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

I am not that familiar yet in the industry of laws and right thus I could not yet give a

noncircular definition of claim- right for its definition is indeed of important for everyone for indeed

rights are the things that are keeping us safe from others.



Page

37



Page

38

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously




Quote:

“Not all legal rights or an even constitutional right represents moral rights against the government.”

The leaders of the community are indeed the government and that they should play their role as

such being a good leader and being our head and guide. Everyone has their right and as stated in the

quotation above legal rights and constitutional rights does not represent moral rights against the

government. My only reaction to this is that it is made by an official that thought of the government as a

perfect leader that no one could abuse it but as we can see it now because of this fact some government

official are abusing their power. With such situation indeed people have rights but sometime the

government is playing the role of God who is the only one above the law.





Review:

The chapter discussed great things about right and their great role in the betterment of

everyone with relation to the government. Some topics that was discussed in the chapter was about the

idea of “Not all legal rights or an even constitutional right represents moral rights against the

government.” That for states that The leaders of the community are indeed the government and that

they should play their role as such being a good leader and being our head and guide. Everyone has their

right and as stated in the quotation above legal rights and constitutional rights does not represent moral

rights against the government. My only reaction to this is that it is made by an official that thought of

the government as a perfect leader that no one could abuse it but as we can see it now because of this

fact some government official are abusing their power. With such situation indeed people have rights

but sometime the government is playing the role of God who is the only one above the law.

Some things like the government models in how they would define the right of it’s citizens was

also discussed stating mainly:

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

demands of society at large it has great plausibility. The metaphor balancing of the public



Page

39

interest against personal claims is established in our political and juridical rhetoric and this

metaphor gives the model both familiarity and appeal. Nevertheless the first model is a wrong

model, certainly in the case of rights generally regarded as important and the metaphor is the

heart of its error.

• The second model is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker

members of political community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their

government as the more powerful members have secured themselves, so that if some men have

freedom of decision whatever the effect on the general good then all men must have the same

freedom.

Another things is about the stated right in the strong sense by Ronald Dworkin that stated that if

the people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere if the people have the right to do

something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. This notion of rights according to him rest on the

Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community and also to the idea

of political equality. The concept of rights and particularly the concepts of rights against the government

have its most natural use when a political society is divided and appeals to co-operation or a common

goal are pointless.


I have learned many things in this chapter mainly about rights and its connection with the

government. Indeed our rights are a great thing that we should always put in mind and all the topics

about it should be taken seriously.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism and

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative


What are the rights of being a citizens?

Is right to break the low possible?

Is our right a serious matter?

What are our rights?

What are controversial rights?

Review Questions:

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

by the U.S. Constitution?



Page

40

According to the chapter what Ronald Dworkin means about the right in the strong sense is

that if the people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. This

notion of rights according to him rest on the Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as

members of the moral community and also to the idea of political equality. The concept of rights

and particularly the concepts of rights against the government have its most natural use when a

political society is divided and appeals to co-operation or has a common goal are pointless. The

rights that are protected by the USA Constitutions as was stated in the chapter are those rights that

are known and agreed upon by their country and by their people. They are protecting all rights that

they have as long as it is not violated and abused to anyone or any other rights.

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

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

As was stated in the chapter not all legal rights or even constitutional rights represent moral

rights against the government. We have the constitutional right to vote again on the basis of a

judgment that this would be for the general good. Those constitutional rights that we call

fundamental, like the right of free speech, are supposed to represent rights against the government

in the strong sense.

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

does Dworkin find more attractive?

The two model of how a government might define the rights of its citizens are legal and

constitutional model and as the chapter discussed it Ronald Dworkin prefers the second model

rather than the first.

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

According to Ronald Dworkinthe two important ideas that are behind the institution or

rights are the act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities and justifications of rights


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

Everyone has the power on his own will to break the law for everyone is free to do what

every they pleases that’s why we have rights to prevent people from doings such acts for in doing so

they would have their respective consequences.

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

Rights in the strong sense are compatible with John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism.

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



Page

41

I would think that Immanuel Kant would accept the thought of a right in the strong sense by

Ronald Dworkin.



Page

42

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - John Rawls: A Theory of Justice




Quote:

“The first principle of justice involves equal basic liberties.”

In this quotation we can spot three main words which are:

• Justice is indeed a vital thing for us for it is the factor that can make us do something or make us

not do something. Because of this word justice abuse of once right and others right would be

given a proper consequence with the thought of making the person who abuses rights to change

and to learn their lessons. Indeed justice played a vital part in the greatness of things world for

everyone to leave in.

• Equal is the word that defines our right for indeed a person’s right to do something and to no do

something is also based on once right stating that everyone are equal under God. Equality is the

factor that would state many most of the world’s rules regulations and duties.

• Liberty as was stated in Wikipedia is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the

condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. That simply

states once freedom to do anything that one wanted to do.

In conclusion we can say that indeed the quotation given in the chapter that sates the words

above is indeed an important thing for everyone to know and everyone to live with. For indeed as was

stated in the quote liberty is the first principle of justice for there would be no justice without freedom

and there would be no equality without freedom.





Review:

The chapter discussed the issue about the relation of once freedom or liberty with the rights of

oneself, the rights of others and the justice in between. Indeed the argument is quit intriguing for some

of its rational answers which are right are in a sense not right in the eyes of God. But we all know people

have different views in life thus we need to respect them.



Page

43

The concept of the original position was discussed in the chapter saying that the original

position is the principles of justice for the basic structure of society. In addition, they are the principles

that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest. Some principles of justice were

also discussed stating as follows:

• The first principle involves equal basic liberties that state “Each person is to have an equal right

to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of

liberty for all”. Moreover John Rawls also stated that “First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty):

The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order [i.e. one higher in the list is to be

satisfied before the next is applied - as in a lexicon or dictionary all words beginning with A come

before all those beginning with B] and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of

liberty.”

• The second principle concerns the arrangement of the social and economic inequalities that

stated “The second principle is also called the difference principle, and it specifies how

economic advantages should be distributed. It has two parts. Firstly, there is the difference

principle proper, the principle for the distribution of acquired wealth in society. This is basically

the principle to regulate taxation and redistribution. The second part of the second principle is

the principle of equal opportunity. It regulates access to coveted social positions - basically jobs

and positions of authority”

In the end we can just state that man has their own freedom and that they can do anything they

please with it thus rights are created to limit them from other people creating justice that would give

consequences of the act of abusing once right that affected others.


The thing that I’ve learned in this chapter is all about the connection of freedom, rights and

justice stain that man has their own freedom and that they can do anything they please with it thus

rights are created to limit them from other people creating justice that would give consequences of the

act of abusing once right that affected others. Also one thing I’ve learned in this chapter is that we hold

the key to our lives for as was stated we have our freedom and it is just limited to in relation to others

but not with thee self.

Citation: Contemporary Moral Problems: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Immanuel Kant: The Categorical

Imperative and Mary Midgley : Trying out One's New Sword


As stated in the chapter what is the first principle?

What is the theory of justice?

What is the second principle is all about?



Page

44

What is liberty?

As stated in the chapter what is the main idea of the theory of justice?

Review Questions:

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

As John Rawls the concept of the original position is stated as the principles of justice for the

basic structure of society. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to

further their own interest.

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

The first principle that was stated by John Rawls involves an equal basic liberty that states

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties

compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”. Moreover John Rawls also stated that “First

Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty): The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order [i.e.

one higher in the list is to be satisfied before the next is applied - as in a lexicon or dictionary all

words beginning with A come before all those beginning with B] and therefore liberty can be

restricted only for the sake of liberty.”

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

sacrificed?

The second principle stated by John Rawls concerns the arrangement of the social and

economic inequalities that stated “The second principle is also called the difference principle, and it

specifies how economic advantages should be distributed. It has two parts. Firstly, there is the

difference principle proper, the principle for the distribution of acquired wealth in society. This is

basically the principle to regulate taxation and redistribution. The second part of the second

principle is the principle of equal opportunity. It regulates access to coveted social positions -

basically jobs and positions of authority”


1. On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as

long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to

do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in homosexual activities as

long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does

not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their

homes?



Page

45

The statement given stated that each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic

liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others shows that every individual

can do whatever they want for they have the freedom to do so keeping in mind that they are not

affecting others.

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different

principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution

of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt

socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?

Indeed it is possible for a free and rational person in the original position to agree upon

different principles than given by Rawls but it also depends on the knowledge and capabilities of

that particular person on how one approaches the idea.



Page

46

Book Review: Chapter 1 Ethical Theories - Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice




Quote:

”Women are more likely to have feelings of care, while men generally claimed to take only the justice

perspective”

I can definitely states such quotations as true for it was stated in some readings about man and

women man are logical while woman are relational. With regards with the quotation the idea of the

chapter saying that woman are likely to have feelings of care while man generally claimed to take only

the justice perspective would definitely by proven with such statement that man is logical while woman

are rational.





Review:

The chapter tackled many things about as the title entails the need for more justice. Indeed man

can never be contented of what they already have and that though they already have freedom on their

own to do anything they wanted to do still they want more. The chapter discussed some things about

the difference of justice and care perspective that was stated by Annette Baier stating that to describe

the shortcomings of a system of ethics based solely on justice. “The solution, Baier says, is the

introduction of “care” as an ethical system to supplement traditional liberal theories of justice. She

contends that women are more likely to have feelings of care, while men generally claimed to take only

the justice perspective. Baier argues that the perspective of caretakers fulfills people’s emotional needs

to be attached to something. Reciprocal equality, characteristic of contractarian liberalism, does not

guarantee this attachment “. While on care perspective she describes that “Women, by contrast, are

more often concerned with substantive moral matters of care, personal relationships and avoiding hurt

to others. They tend to avoid abstract principles and Universalist pretensions and to focus instead on

contextual detail and interpersonal emotional responsiveness.”

Kolbergs theory of moral development was also discussed stating that the progress of affiliate

relationship and the concept of identity expands to include the experience of interconnection. The

criticisms that Gilligan and Annette Baier made about the said theory is as follows:



Page

47

• First, the empirical correlation between gender and moral perspective was not uniform and the

data themselves were open to various interpretations.

• Second, women's orientation toward care and personal relationships seemed mainly to reflect

the social role of the traditional, full-time heterosexual wife and mother.

• And the third objection is that the empirical research underlying Gilligan's discussion of care

ethics was based only on white, middle-class, heterosexual women, and her writings did not

acknowledge that differences among women might make a difference to their moral

perspectives.

Also stated in the chapter was a feminist ethic stating that “Feminist ethics shares the general

feminist goal of eliminating the subordination and oppression of women and enhancing societal respect

for women's viewpoints and capacities. Toward this end, feminist ethics adopts a number of diverse

methodological strategies, including the defense of theories and concepts that seem more compatible

with women's modes of reflection and understanding than do those of mainstream ethics. Some of

these strategies were developing simultaneously for non-feminist reasons in mainstream philosophical

ethics. These coincident strategies include: a search for alternatives to Kantian and utilitarian ethics,

legitimating of the personal point of view, defense of the role of emotion in moral judgment and

development of a relationally oriented moral psychology.”

Indeed many things were discussed in this chapter about justice and mans need for more of it.

But in conclusion some things are really out of one persons hand that some things are indeed part of any

cycle that man can never handle.


The chapter tackled many things about mans search for more power. I also have learned some

things about justice and care perspective including Kohlbergs theory of moral development, feminist

ethics and many more.

Citation: N/A


Care perspective is stated as?

What does the word counterculture means?

Stated in the topic what is just perspective?

What is the first virtue of social institutions?

According to the chapter what is Moral Theory?

Review Questions:



Page

48

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

perspectives develop?

The thought that can distinguish justice from care perspective is that justice perspective

relay on that is really in the book or what is really stated in law while care perspective is a view

where it sometimes regards the law and the heart or emotion conquers the decision. According to

Gilligan the perspective developed by her was to describe the shortcomings of a system of ethics

based solely on justice. “The solution, Baier says, is the introduction of “care” as an ethical system to

supplement traditional liberal theories of justice. She contends that women are more likely to have

feelings of care, while men generally claimed to take only the justice perspective. Baier argues that

the perspective of caretakers fulfills people’s emotional needs to be attached to something.

Reciprocal equality, characteristic of contractarian liberalism, does not guarantee this attachment “.

While on care perspective she describes that “Women, by contrast, are more often concerned with

substantive moral matters of care, personal relationships and avoiding hurt to others. They tend to

avoid abstract principles and Universalist pretensions and to focus instead on contextual detail and

interpersonal emotional responsiveness.”

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

of this theory?

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is the progress of affiliate relationship and the

concept of identity expands to include the experience of interconnection. The criticisms that Gilligan

and Annette Baier made about the said theory is as follows:

• First, the empirical correlation between gender and moral perspective was not uniform and the

data themselves were open to various interpretations.

• Second, women's orientation toward care and personal relationships seemed mainly to reflect

the social role of the traditional, full-time heterosexual wife and mother.

• And the third objection is that the empirical research underlying Gilligan's discussion of care

ethics was based only on white, middle-class, heterosexual women, and her writings did not

acknowledge that differences among women might make a difference to their moral

perspectives.

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

What are these differences?

The three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics are as follows:

• The relationship between equals

• The relative weight put to freedom of choice



Page

49

• The authority of intellect over emotions

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

The reason why Baier attacked the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly

passions is because she does not support its concept.


1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of our

patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon the old

values of justice, freedom, and right?

The meaning that Annette Baier is stating when she stated that “to transvalue the values of

our patriarchal past” is to replace the old values that they already have however, they will never

abandon the old values of justice, freedom and right for indeed the key to the future is the past.

2. What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including

women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

I would agree with the Kantian view of extending the rights to all rational beings including

women and the minorities for everybody are as said should be equal in rights and laws under God.

In addition, being under God indeed shows that there is no such thing as full freedom for we are all

limited in doing bad things that may harm others. Lastly I would think Annette Baier wouldn’t agree

with such view though her own view that she uses against this view is insufficient.

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

our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very

important?

Indeed everyone has freedom but some things can never be change including the force of

nature that it is to be born from anyone.



Page

50

Documents

Contemporary Moral Problems Chapte 1