Contemporary Moral Problems

Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition by James E. White
2/26/2009
Submitted By: Neferteri Grace P. Jumawan

Book Review: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White 2
Table of Contents
Book Review: Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels
Book Review: Religion, Moral, and Conscience by John Arthur
Book Review: Master-

Master-Slave-
Slave-Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche
Book Review: Trying Out One’s Sword by Mary Midgley
Book Review: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
Book Review: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels
Book Review: The Categorical Imperatives

Imperatives by Immanuel Kant
Book Review: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle
Book Review: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg

Book Review
Book : Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels
Amazon : http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quotes :
“Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never
question.”
“The agent is merely doing what he most wants to do”
“People will act unselfishly all the time”
“If I want only good my own goods, and care nothing for others, then I’m selfish; but if I
also want other people to be well-off and happy, and if I act on that desire, then my action is not
selfish.”
“A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interests.”
“The object of our attitude is the attainment of the goal” – James Rachels
Learning Expectation:
I want to know and understand the concept of Egoism and Moral Scepticism and how does it
affect the belief and act of the people. I also want to know how the author explains his stand regarding
selfishness and moral views.
Review :
In this part, James Rachels discussed Egoism and Moral Scepticism. He discussed the
legend of Gyges. The story is about Gyges who found a magic ring and used it for his own motives.
When he found the ring and discovered the capability of that ring, he immediately goes to the
Royal Palace to seduce the Queen and kill the King so that he would be the new King and get the
throne. Since he knew that the magic ring can make him invisible and can make him go anywhere
he wanted, he took that opportunity to do his bad motives. Because of that he was the new king.
Then, when the throne passed to him, his behaviour was totally unacceptable. Imagine he can
make anything he wanted like he can sleep with other woman without seeing that he was there,
he can also kill innocent people, he can make free all the prisoners, and he can do whatever he
liked to the people. It seems that he found pleasures in this case. He took advantage the uses of the
magic ring.
The legend of Gyges shows selfishness and immorality because of the fact that he killed
someone just because he wanted to be the new king and wanted the Queen. In this aspect, it was
totally unacceptable and unethical. His behaviour, his actions, his desire was totally not in the
context of good and morality. I don’t see any ethical moves here.
Arthur and Glaucon discussed their sceptical and moral views. They discussed the
psychological and ethical egoism. They stated that psychological egoism says that all men are
bound to be selfish ones in every action they do. In this case, even though men act as if the
advantage would be taken by others, it is likely to be not. Then, in ethical egoism is in the contrast
of the first one. Author stated that it was a view wherein men ought to act whatever he likes to.
Here, when men acts and behave and have no obligations to do anything accepts their own
interests.
What I like about the topic is they able to defined and explained how selfishness and
egoism occurs on our acts.
What I’ve learned:
I learned that selfishness can be your own motives and interest will be also part of those
selfish acts.
Integrative Questions:
1. What is Psychological Egoism?
2. What is Ethical Egoism?
3. What is the difference of the two?
4. What is rational egoist?
5. How does the legend of Gyges related to the topic Egoism and Secpticism?
James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Review Questions:
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The story of the legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who has found a magic ring in a
fissure opened by an earthquake. The magic ring was used to seduce the Queen. Here, the
magic ring has the capability that when someone uses it, he/she can be invisible and
allowing that someone to go to anywhere he wanted. Gyges used it as a tool to enter into
the Royal Palace for the Queen and to kill the King. And once the king died, Gyges will
eventually be in the throne and Queen will be his wife. Maybe the reader can ask the
behaviour itself of Gyges. Is the behaviour and actions of Gyges wrong or right and how
does it affects his virtue?

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
Psychological egoism states that all men are bound to be selfish on the way they do things
while the ethical egoism is the opposite of the first. Ethical egoism explained that men
ought to act whatever he likes to.

Book Review
Book : Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism Moral, Religion, and conscience by John Arthur
Amazon : http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quotes :
“Religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action;
and religion is essential for there even to be a right and wrong.”
“One reason is what it implies. Suppose we were to grant that the diving command theory is
correct, so that actions are right just because they are commanded by God.”
I want to learn how the author explained and defined morality and religion and how they were
connected or not to each other. I also expect to learn how he handles and give his thoughts in every
argument. Lastly, I want to know how he fully explained the divine command theory.
Review:
John Arthur, the author, wrote the book entitled Religion, Morality, and Conscience. In this chapter,
the author explained the definition of Morality and Religion and how it is related or influenced to each
other. He said that morality is behaviour and actions of the people while the religion is the belief of the
people in supernatural forms. Here, he means that religion is independent to the morality. It doesn’t mean
that when your actions are wrong, it will be irreligious. But for some reasons, when your actions lead to be
wrongful like for instance abortion, the religion will come out and the church will probably disapprove that
actions. Morality and Religion will be somewhat connected in a sense that when you do something,
analyze it whether it’s wrong or right and by this religion or your belief will comes next. And that religion is
necessary for the moral guidance or moral motivation.
Another topic that Arthur had discussed was the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command
Theory means God is the ruler of all. Here you will either know if the actions of the people are right or
wrong if it was commanded by God. If God commanded that this action, beliefs are right, it is. But when it
wasn’t commanded by God it means that it is wrong. God is responsible for judging and knowing whether
the people’s action is right or wrong. So in result, God can change any rules whether we think it might be
right or wrong. What I like about Arthur’s argument was when he asked and explained that with this Divine
Command Theory, God can change any rules and according to this theory, God can change the good ones
to bad ones. Meaning it is possible that God would change and order people that this action such as
helping other people will lead to cruelty and that cruelty will be the right one and vice versa.
In conclusion, I like how Arthur discussed the morality and religion and how it is connected in
some ways and how they religion influenced the actions of the people. Here, we can say that it would be
necessary for us to know how actions be related to your beliefs and this belief affected your actions.
I learned that Morality is somewhat necessary or connected to religion in a sense that you’re
actions will be criticized. Your actions will influence your beliefs.
Integrative Question:
1. What is Divine Command Theory?
2. How is religion related or connected to Morality?
3. Who is John Arthur?
4. Who is John Dewey?
5. What is the title of the book written by John Dewey?
Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
Religion and Morality is different. As Arthur explained, it seems that Religion is different
from Morality in a sense that religion is an act wherein worship, praying, supernatural
beliefs, institutional forms, and others were involved. While in the other side, morality is
more on how people act and behave which lead to the act of obligations, rights, laws, and
rules. Here, it seems that both are different when it comes to practices. But still people
don't see that these two concepts are merely connected in which they try to make
situation wherein morality and religion will somewhat combine. For instance, people are
trying to do the right thing because they think that they will eventually be punished
whenever they violated any rules or in the contrary of the law. Here, you can see that those
two concepts are trying to meet when it comes to any situations. People will look upon
the possibility that if they do something wrong or right, God will always be here to judge
or see your acts. In this situation, the concept of religion comes. And religion will trigger
whether your acts or you moral will intend to be right or wrong.
2. Why inst religion necessary for moral motivation?
Here, it seems that religion is important or necessary when people do the right or wrong
thing. That religion is one of the things that people intend to support when they make
decisions or when they act. But in the contrary, you may find that religion has nothing to
do with people's act. As Arthur mentioned, whenever people act or make decisions in their
life, they tend to not relate it to any religious acts. it is where people has the capacity to
think what is right and wrong even without the concept of religion. It seems that people
will probably think that they act or they do that not because of the religion itself but for
the purpose of not hurting themselves, their family, or friends. Whether they act morally or
not, religion will not probably be one of the reasons why they acted like that. It's
somewhat they do things without thinking that religion might be related to it or will it
concern them. Aside from this, people don't think that religion will come in making moral
decisions. Here, people sometimes don't consider the thought of religion in making their
acts or just in making decisions in life.
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge
Some people think that religion is necessary as a source of moral knowledge and some
may not. Here, people are more on the fact that they make decisions not because of the
religion or some other reasons. They tend have the conclusions in mind about people’s
motives. It seems that people must take into account also the religion in making the
necessary acts. But on the other hand, people think that whenever they decide whether to
act accordingly or act harshly, it seems that they are most in favor on their beliefs and try to
not relate religion as they decided on certain things. It’s true that they need also guidance
and people build concept to their mind that they cannot know certain acts like doing
what is right without even knowing or having a guidance of those religious teachings.
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
According to the author, Divine Command Theory explained that God is related to moral
law or the same with the legislatures. Here, it means that God is like the most powerful or
should I say God is the ruler of all. It mentioned that without God’s command, there would
be no moral rules. With this definition, Arthur thought that it's not a good idea that you
define god as likely as legislatures. Arthur rejected this divine theory of command because
of the reasons behind this concept. Here, he said that actions are all right whenever it was
commanded by God. He stated that if God commanded us to do that and those, that
actions are right and same thing if God didn't commanded this act, it is not wrong.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Arthur argued that morality and religion is merely independent to each other. But he
makes it a point to explain also the other side of it. Since, morality and religion is not the
same. Mr. Arthur explained morality influenced by religion. Since morality involves the
actions and behavior of the people, it will be related to the religion once your action
compromise to the concepts of religion. One example of this is Abortion. When this
happened, morality and religion will interact and be connected to each other. Abortion is
immoral and church will not agree to this. According to Arthur, the views and thoughts of
the people about moral issues are based or influenced by the religious practices and
outlook.
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
As Dewey stated Morality is social, Arthur has his own interpretation on the statement of
Dewey. He explained how religion and morality seems to be connected or influenced
each other or might as well that morality is social. Here, Arthur mentioned his 3 arguments
about this. The first one is that the existence of morality is based on our potential to think
of our choices and which alternatives should we follow. The second one talks about
people and how they manage their relationships among other people. Then the last one is
about how people being a subject to criticism by others.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
I think Arthur argued about this. He disapproved the divine command theory. He
explained that the concept of the divine command theory is somewhat unacceptable
because of the fact that you can only determine the right or wrong if it was commanded
by God. So, Arthur mentioned some of his thoughts explaining why he’s in favor of this
theory.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
As stated by Dewey, morality is social and we have obligations to whether humans or
nonhuman animals. Since everyone has its way on surviving and everyone whether you’re a
human or animals, you have the rights to be in this world. We can have obligation to nonhumans
by allowing them to live and survive in this world.

3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral
education?
Moral education is like teachings. Here, you will learn whether the actions would be in the
right or wrong one.

Book Review:
Book : Contemporary Moral Problems: Master- and Slave- Morality
Author : Friedrich Nietzsche
Amazon:
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0495553204/
Quotes:
“Every elevation of the type “man” has hitherto been the work of aristocratic society- and so will it
always be- a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human
beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other”. - Friedrich Nietzsche
“Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society” - Friedrich
Nietzsche
“There is Master- and Slave- Morality”- Friedrich Nietzsche
Review :
The book titled “Master- and Slave- Morlaity” was discussed by Mr. Nietzsche. When you read the
whole essay, you may find that the concept of master- and slavery are one of the topics that should be
discussed by now. Right now we do encounter this kind of act. Every country has this kind of master and
slave. Some people might accept this fact and some might not. People will absolutely being in pain when
they took this concept.
In this chapter, the author discussed corruption which is quite good to hear and to know. The
author also discussed and characterized a good and healthy society.
The author explained the concept of master morality and slave morality. The master morality is
different to slave morality and that’s a fact. The behaviour of the master is more into the bad ones because
master is a master and they have the power to do whatever they like to do with their slaves. Master thinks
that slaves are their property wherein fact it’s not. Slaves are not their property. Slaves are being suffered
and master gives so much pain to the slaves.
As long as there’s a master, slave would be always being a slave and the same with masters.
Here, the author also tackled the so-called Will. He explained the Will of denial of life. He stated and
described it as a principle of dissolution and decay. With this, mean or someone must extremely go to its
basis and refuse to accept all the weaknesses like injury, cruelty, and others.
Right now, master morality and slave morality are always acceptable any country. Many countries
have its own way and have this kind of morality. It was established to us to have slaves and masters. It’s
quite annoying that people didn’t think that slave is one of the bad things that we might encounter. Since
slavery is against our human rights, they didn’t know that those slaves are also humans and they shouldn’t
make people slaves. One example of this is the maid and the boss. In this example, there is s slave and
master. The slave is the maid wherein he does a lot of work and the master is the one who give
compensation to the slaves. People are suffering nowadays because of this kind of behaviour and actions.

I learned that exploitation must not be used by any corrupt society.
Integrative Questions:
1. What is Master morality?
2. What is Slave morality?
3. What do you mean by Exploitation?
4. How exploitation was be related to corruption, primitive society?
5. What is Will?
Friedrich Nietzsche: Master-

Master- and Slave-
Slave-Morality
Review Questions:
Questions:
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.
4. Explain the Will to Power.
Discussion Questions:
1. Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have
charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of value”?

Book
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Trying out One’s New Sword
Author : Mary Midgley
Amazon : http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1
Quotes :
“Isolating barriers simply cannot arise here” – Mary Midgley
“What is involved in judging?” – Mary Midgley
“The power of moral judgement is, in fact, not a luxury, not a perverse indulgence of the self-
righteousness.” – Mary Midgley
“When we judge something to be good or bad, better or worse than something else, we are taking it
as an example to aim at or avoid” – Mary Midgley
“Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policy, no
chance of profiting by other people’s insights or mistakes.” – Mary Midgley
Review :
Ms. Mary Midgley, the author tackles the moral isolationism. Midgley stated that moral isolationism
engages the view of anthropologists and explained that people cannot criticize cultures because they
don’t understand it. She cited an example about a Japanese culture or what they called Tsujigiri. Tsujigiri is
very controversial that time. It means trying out ones new sword on a chance wayfarer. It is required for
them to try samurai sword because it will identifies their honour. Here, they can identify if the sword works
properly by the means of slicing someone at a single blow from the shoulder at the opposite flank. The
sword is the basis of the honours of their ancestors, their empire, and themselves. Midgley had an
argument about moral isolationism. According to her, Moral isolationism describes or concludes on the
moral reasoning. It is in the context of immoralism which determines difficulty in a logical manner.
She also discussed the concept of judging or criticizing other cultures. Here, she said that the main
basis of judging cultures is our own cultures. You cannot criticize other culture if you don’t know your own
culture.
In this generation, our cultures are important. We are moving in a world with different and mix
cultures. People have their own understanding about their cultures and at the same time to others. People
are now being judge by their actions and based on their cultures. In spite of that, people are trying their
best just to understand every culture in order for them to become cooperative. Every individual must have
understood every culture because it will be their basis in introducing who really they are.
I learned that you must first understand your own culture before you criticize others. You have to learn
how to be more flexible when it comes to the culture of others. Some culture might help people and some
might not.
1. What is Tsijugiri?
2. What do you mean by trying out ones sword?
3. What is Moral Reasoning?
4. What is Moral Isolationism?
5. According to Midgley, What is the basis of criticizing ones culture?
Review Question:
1. Moral Isolationism defines as the view of the anthropologist and others wherein they explain that
people cannot criticize cultures which they don’t understand.
2. Tsujigiri means trying out ones new sword. It is very controversial in the Japanese Culture. Here, people
have to try new sword to someone. When it works, they need to slice someone at a single blow. This will
identify their honor, the honors of their ancestors, and empire.
3. Midgley stated that Moral isolationism would fall in the concept of a general ban on the moral
reasoning.
4. Midgley said that in determining the basis of criticizing ones culture, people should know first their
own culture.
Discussion Question:
1. The only thing I know about being immoralist is being bad. Immoralist for me means the opposite of
being a good one. I think immoralists are just considering the concept of the Master-Morality and nothing
else.
2. I agree with Midgley. Today, there are lots of cultures that are mixed with different countries. When you
look at every aspect, you will find that one culture will be mix with another culture. If we take on the part of
the Philippine settings, you will see that every culture correspond every identity. But since we suffered
colonization at the past, our cultures were being mixed by other country. Right now, we have our own
culture and at the same time we also adopt and use other cultures. I remembered one of my professor said
that people are just adopting and borrowing ones culture. We use other culture for our own survival and
motives.
Book Review:
Book : Contemporary Moral Problems
Chapter : Utilitarianism
Author : John Stuart Mill
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
Quotes:
“Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria
of morality” – John Mill
“The desire of it is not different thing from the desire of happiness, any more than the love of music
or the desire of health” – John Mill
“Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole” – John Mill
I am expecting to understand what really are utilitarianism and its effect on the individual. I also am
wondering why John Stuart Mill, the author, discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. I want to know his
argument on this topic.
Review:
The chapter discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. The Author describes and explains the basic
principles of Utilitarianism and why it is called as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mr. Mill defines the
difference and relationship of happiness and pleasures.
According to Mill, the principle of utility or what he called as the Greatest Happiness Principle simply
describes how every action becomes right as they tend to relate it to happiness, and becomes wrong as
the opposite. Here, Mill cited that intended pleasures and absence of pain will determine by the means of
happiness, and the pain itself involves unhappiness. One example of the unhappiness is when someone
steals something. In this case, that someone is unhappy because of what he/she did. He/she will eventually
feel bad after he did it. It only justifies the concept of unhappiness. People can identify unhappiness based
on their actions and behaviours. For some reason, if you did something wrong, you will feel bad and your
conscience will not be at peace. Then, this is the time where people become unhappy.
In this chapter, Mill also defines the concept of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism considers majority.
Meaning, if something happens like for example in a country, the action for that matter will be based on
the majority wherein they will identify the outcome of it.
For instance, someone kills the secretary of the country. When we say utilitarianism, it involves the
majority. Since the effect of the death of the Secretary is big, it will bring us unhappiness. For , if the effect
on them is big, it will only cause unhappiness and it will only be wrong for them.
Aside from the concept of Utilitarianism, Mill also discusses happiness, pleasures, and pain. Here, he
said that you will only achieve happiness if it’s beyond pain.
I learned that you will only feel the pain or unhappiness if your action is wrong. Based on the
Utilitarianism, happiness can achieve based on the desire of the person and the happiness itself identifies
the absolute pain.
1. What is Utilitarianism?
2. What do you mean by Happiness is desirable?
3. What is the Principle of Utility?
4. What is lower pleasure?
5. What is the difference between Higher and Lower pleasures?
Review Question:
1. The Principle of Utility describes that when the action is right, it is happiness and when it’s wrong, it
is unhappiness.
2. As Mill objects the Epicureans, he stated that it will not be approved unless pleasures of the
intellect, imaginations and others are not assigned.

3. Mill defines higher pleasures as all who have experience decided preference while the Lower
pleasures is defined based on who are competently acquainted to both.
4. In this context, Happiness is described based on what the majority will say and feel. If the majority
feel that the action is right or accepted, happiness will be established and when the utilitarian
doesn’t accept that wrong behaviour, it will fall under the concept of unhappiness.
5. According to Mill, The principle of Utility is happiness and all other thing as being described as
desirables.
1. When we say happiness it means pleasure but it doesn’t mean that when you are happy, there’s
no pain. Happiness is an experience wherein people don’t feel pain but sometimes they tend to be
happy because they sad. People sometimes are happy not because of pleasures. Maybe there are
some instances that people are happy because they just want to keep away the pain or people just
want to hide the pain. I don’t agree that when you are happy, there’s no pain. Sometimes,
happiness will lead you into pain. Sometimes happiness can cause you so much pain that you
didn’t even realize that you are suffering from pain.
2. Honestly, when I read the meaning of higher and lower pleasure, I had a hard time just to
understand these concepts. I don’t understand the difference between higher and lower though
the only thing that describes it is the fact that both are different on the amount it gives to the
person.
3. I think what Mill said is true. In the context of the principle of utility, individual will only be happy if
it will benefit the majority. It’s a matter of how the actions will benefit the majority.
Book Review:
Book : Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels
Quotes:
“There is a sense in which no moral philosopher can completely reject Utilitarianism.”

– James Rachels
I want to know how James Rachel discusses his arguments about Utilitarianism. I am expecting
different arguments from Rachels.
Review :
This chapter discusses the Classical Utilitarianism. Here, the author classifies it into three main points.
The first one defines the actions are to be judged wrong or right solely in the virtue of their consequences.
Second, you can assess consequences based on the happiness and unhappiness it brought to people or
that is caused. Then lastly, it stated that no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than
anyone else’s.
Aside from this, Rachels also discusses the objections about justice, right, and promises. In justice,
people should bear false witness against the innocent individual. For instance, a person kills a boy. In this
case, the killer is responsible for any lawsuit or imprisonment. The family of the boy who was killed has the
right to demand for justice. In the context of rights, it identifies how the action is under morality or not. In
the example that was given a while ago, you will find that the action or the behaviour of the person who
killed the boy was unacceptable. It’s is reasonable to punished that human being because he committed a
crime. In this case, the rights will be given to the family of the dead boy. Then in Promise or Backward-
looking reasons, throws the argument that the only thing that matters is the consequences.
Rachels, the author, also mentioned the concept of an Act-Utilitarianism. This Act-Utilitarianism is the
old version of what they call Rule-Utilitarianism. This rule is referenced to the principle and the act of every
individual. Those acts will be criticized and judged as right and wrong by the means of the reference to the
rules.
Though I didn’t purely understand the arguments and stand of Rachels regarding about
Utilitarianism, I enjoyed reading it because I find something new on it. I learned that the concept of
utilitarianism is not just simply what’s best for the majority. The context of Utilitarianism is also broad.
1. What is the Classical Utilitarianism?
2. Differentiate the 3 main points of Classical Utilitarianism
3. What is Rule Utilitarianism?
4. What do you mean by Backward-Looking Reasons?
5. What is the strength of Utilitarianism as described by Rachels?
Review Questions:
1. Classical Utilitarianism is summed up in 3 propositions. Those are the ff:
a. First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their consequences.
b. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of
happiness or unhappiness that is caused.
c. Third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness as
to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.
2. Hedonism – explains the happiness as one ultimate good and unhappiness as the ultimate evil. Based
on what Rachels stated, hedonism gets the thing in a wrong way. Hedonism has a misunderstanding on
the nature of happiness.
3. The objections about justice, rights, and promise are as follows:
a. Justice – the argument is based when the action of a person is unacceptable by the law,
that person should bear false witness against the innocent one.
b. Rights – it describes the case of the not fictitious wherein the morality of the officer was
involved.
c. Promise/ Backward-Looking Reasons – if you promised someone, you must do it.

4. Act-Utilitarianism or the Real-Utilitarianism (the new version theory) – the action will be judged based
on the rules that are established by reference to the principles.
5. The third line of defense is conducted by a small group of contemporary utilitarianism who has
different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments.
1. For me it’s not acceptable. I will not choose utilitarianism over moral beliefs because in some point I am
not a utilitarian and aside from that, I don’t want to reject things that will just conflict any issues.
2. Everyone deserves to be accepted even if your part is small. In utilitarianism, it is more focused on
human beings who are their concern.
3. I agree to what Rachels said.

Book Review:
Title: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Author : James Rachels
Quotes :
“To preserve one’s life is a duty”
“Rational nature exists as an end in itself”
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other; never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end......” – Immanuel Kant
Expectation:
I want to understand the concept of Categorical Imperatives. I also want to know how Mr. Kant
describes and explain his thoughts regarding Good Will.
Review :
This chapter tackles about Categorical Imperatives. Mr. Immanuel Kant, the author, introduces the
Good Will. He defines the Good will by the means of Character. Here, he stated that it’s impossible to
consider anything except the Good Will.
Kant also stated that one’s moral duty can be achieved by categorical imperatives. So far, I don’t
understand what really categorical imperative is. But I believe that when I read the whole thing, I can get
information and use it in the future.
Kant mentioned that Good Will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes and
because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. I agree to what Kant said in this statement. Good
Will would is not good unless you do well. What I mean is you cannot get the real meaning of Good Will if
you don’t know how to be good or how to do good things. The main issue here is people is not born to be
bad and every individual is good by its nature.

I learned the concept of Good Will and how Good Will affects the people. I also learned that action
does not depend on what you want to expect. There are things that your motives are against on your
expectations.
1. What is Categorical Imperative?
2. What is a Good Will?
3. What do you mean by motive of duty?
4. What is Duty?
5. What is hypothetical Imperative?

ARISTOTLE: Happiness and

and Virtue
Review Questions
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be
happy?
Answers:
1. Happiness
According to Aristotle, Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect
virtue. He also said that happiness is not a pleasure, honor, or wealth. It’s a continuous looking for a soul’s
potential for virtue. One can achieve happiness by being virtuous.
2. Moral Virtue
As Aristotle explained, 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. Here, it says that this cannot
be achieved by nature or it’s not something that arises by nature. It is like a habit. Person has to do
something in order to get something. It’s like a habit which you will learn through a process. One
example of this is reading books and writing. We definitely don’t know how to read books and
write when we were babies. But time passed, we will able to learn and practice it. We need to train
first in order for us to achieve this.
3. There’s always a way were people can be happy. Everyone can be happy as long as they do things
accordingly or in a right manner. People have their own definition for happiness. They find the true
meaning of happiness and by doing something.
Discussion Questions
1. Aristotle characterizes a life as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of
pleasure?
There’s nothing wrong when sometimes people wants to have or to get into the life of
pleasures. Pleasures are not bad as long as we are in the right track or we know how to
deal with it in a right manner. The life of pleasure seems to be challenging for us. In
people’s mind, pleasures have to sides. One is good and the other is opposite. Pleasures
would only be bad if people or the one who wants pleasure is making or using it bad.
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than everyone else. Why is this? Do you agree
or not?
Philosophers have their own mind and have their own perspectives. They tend to be
happier than anyone else because they’ve done something or they achieve what they
want to achieve, they get what they want, they learn something new, or maybe they prove
something. One of the things why philosophers are being happy is that they get
something. Philosophers are happier because of the wisdom they shared or they find
something interesting for them.

Book Review
Title
: The Nature and Value of Rights
Author : Joel Feinberg
Quotes :
“A legal duty is not something we are implored or advised to do merely; it is something the law, or
an authority under the law, requires us to do whether we want to or not, under pain of penalty”
Learning Expectation :
I want to know the stand of Joel Feinberg on this topic. I want to understand the concept of Nature
and Value of Rights.
Review :
Joel Feinberg, the author of the sub-chapter titled The Nature and Value of Rights, discusses all
about Rights.
In the first statement of Feinberg, he conducted an experiment. Feinberg asks his reader to
imagine Nowheresville on his experiment. Nowheresville is a world wherein rights are not allowed. In this
place, No one has its own right to give his own thoughts, to speak for himself/herself. If we are to compare
this to our country or to other country, you might find that we are much more of a free country than
Nowheresville in a sense that we have our own rights and use it in protecting ourselves, our country in a
not usual issue. In Nowheresville, people in that place cannot claim because they don’t even have rights.
There’s no place in Nowheresville that people can claim whatever damages as implied in any situation.
Feinberg also discussed the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. At first, I don’t
understand the concept of this doctrine. As the author explained, this doctrine describes duties as a
people’s rights and the rights that will give people’s duties. The author stated that it’s just a matter of Yes or
No. Honestly, I didn’t understand his stand on the Yes or No.
Aside from this, the author defines duty in a sense that it is related to people’s actions. Here
Feinberg explained that duty is a must which means even though people who do any kind of duty is
required to do otherwise there’s what the author called under the pain of penalty. It is for the people to do
it because there’s a due. Whether the people like it to do or not, it is for them to do it. Sometimes duty was
fulfilled but still people cannot determine whether that duty is for his/her betterment or happiness or it’s
just a duty that you must accomplish.
The author cited an example. For instance, there’s a traffic light and it turned in red. Drivers have
duty to stop and not to complain. They must do their duty otherwise they will be facing troubles. In this
case, a person has a duty to comply with that. If you would base this example in Nowheresville, the one
that was in the experiment of Feinberg, you will find that people doesn’t have any right to complain or to
voice out their thoughts regarding to some issues because totally they don’t have their rights to do that.
Upon reading this, I find that duty is just a duty meaning person who is responsible to that duty
must do it whether he/she is happy doing that or not. In this case, a person who is engaged in any duty
doesn’t have the right to complain or if you have a duty, it is for you to accomplish it. It is an action that
requires the person to do it. Here, person will not be able to find out if that duty is personally right for them
or just a pain of penalty. I just want to ask if people do something because it requires them to do it or is it
for their own will to do that duty or does their conscience or moral want what they are doing. Duty is
important but what triggers here is the people’s action to that duty.
1. What is the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties?
2. What is a moral worth?
3. What is duty?
4. What is Right?
5. How was the concept of Nowheresville related to duty?
Review Question:
1. Nowheresville is a place mentioned by Feinberg. He describes Nowheresville as a place wherein
people don’t have the rights to claim whatever damages they might encounter or in any part,
there’s no right to complain or claim anything. Since there are no rights, there’s also lack of duty.
2. The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties means duties entail people’s right and
rights entail people’s duty. In this statement, I think duties and rights are partners. Without duty,
there’s no right and the other way around. As Feinberg explains, he eventually says that it’s like a
matter of Yes or No. That duty comes after the action. and rights can’t be distinguished when
there’s a duty.
3. Personal dessert means the individual deserves to get something good from others.
4. Sovereign Right monopoly is defined the person who is said to deserve good things from others
have the rights to have it as a due. In Nowheresville, this sovereign monopoly cannot be implied
since no one there has the rights to claim.


Contemporary Moral Problems

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Contemporary Moral Problems

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Contemporary Moral Problems

Seventh Edition by James E. White

Submitted By: Neferteri Grace P. Jumawan

Book Review: Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels

Book Review: Religion, Moral, and Conscience by John Arthur

Book Review: Master-

Book Review: Trying Out One’s Sword by Mary Midgley

Book Review: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Book Review: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels

Book Review: The Categorical Imperatives

Book Review: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle

Book Review: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg

“The agent is merely doing what he most wants to do”

“People will act unselfishly all the time”

“A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interests.”

selfishness and moral views.

egoism occurs on our acts.

What I’ve learned:

2. What is Ethical Egoism?

3. What is the difference of the two?

4. What is rational egoist?

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

does it affects his virtue?

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

ought to act whatever he likes to.

and religion is essential for there even to be a right and wrong.”

necessary for the moral guidance or moral motivation.

What I’ve learned:

actions will be criticized. Your actions will influence your beliefs.

1. What is Divine Command Theory?

2. How is religion related or connected to Morality?

3. Who is John Arthur?

4. Who is John Dewey?

5. What is the title of the book written by John Dewey?

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

whether your acts or you moral will intend to be right or wrong.

2. Why inst religion necessary for moral motivation?

acts or just in making decisions in life.

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

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

Dewey. He explained how religion and morality seems to be connected or influenced

about how people being a subject to criticism by others.

As stated by Dewey, morality is social and we have obligations to whether humans or

by allowing them to live and survive in this world.

right or wrong one.

Book : Contemporary Moral Problems: Master- and Slave- Morality

Author : Friedrich Nietzsche

beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other”. - Friedrich Nietzsche

“There is Master- and Slave- Morality”- Friedrich Nietzsche

they took this concept.

author also discussed and characterized a good and healthy society.

and master gives so much pain to the slaves.

What I’ve learned:

2. What is Slave morality?

3. What do you mean by Exploitation?

4. How exploitation was be related to corruption, primitive society?

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master-

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

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

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

4. Explain the Will to Power.

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

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Trying out One’s New Sword

Author : Mary Midgley