MORAL CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS

By : Mark Arvin Cembrano

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0

Philippines License.
Table of Content:
James Rachel ………………………………………………………………………………………...…3

Egoism and Moral Skepticism ……………………………………………………………………….3

John Arthur ………………………………………………………………………………………..…….6

Religion, Morality, and Conscience …………………………………………………………………6

Friedrich Nietzsche …………………………………………………………………………………….9

Master and Slavery Morality ………………………………………………………………………….9

Mary Midgley …………………………………………………………………………………………..11

Trying out One’s New Sword ……………………………………………………………………….11

John Stuart Mill ………………………………………………………………………………………..14

Utilitarianism …………………………………………………………………………………………..14

James Rachel ....................................................................................................................…....17

The Debate over Utilitarianism ……………………………………………………………………..17

Emanuel Kant ………………………………………………………………………………………….20

Categorical Imperative ............................................................................................................20

Aristotle …………………………………………………………………………………………………22

Happiness and Virtues ……………………………………………………………………………….22

Joel Feinberg …………………………………………………………………………………………..25

The Nature and Value of the Right …………………………………………………………………25

Ronald Dworkins …………………………………………………………………………………...…27

Taking Right Seriously ……………………………………………………………………………….27

John Rawl ………………………………………………………………………………………………30

A Theory of Justice …………………………………………………………………………………...30

Annette Baier …………………………………………………………………………………………..32

The Need for More than Justice ……………………………………………………………………32

2
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Egoism and Moral Skepticism
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“Psychological egoism has a view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that
is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest “
- James Rachel

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned

Review:
Egoism and moral scientism was presented by James Rachel’s. He has written several
books like vegetarianism and animal rights, preferential quotas, the humanitarian use of
euthanasia and the idea that parents should give as much fundamental moral consideration to
another's children as they do to their own. This particular chapter of the book talks about
Egoism and Moral Scientism, which is a two part where in Psychological Egoism and Ethical
Egoism. He also argued about the legend of Gyges where in the story that was taken from the
book of Plato, to cut the story short there is a shepherd who found a magical ring that can make
him invisible; he used that power for gain. Rachel’s tells Gloucon that the action will be the
same for a person who a rogue and the virtues man .Psychological Egoism has a view that all
men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever
acts is self-interest. On this view, even when men are acting in ways apparently calculated to
benefit others, they are actually motivated by the belief that acting in this way to their own
advantage as said in the book. While Ethical Egoism is, by contrast, a normative view about
how men ought to act, It is the view that, regardless of how men do in fact behave, they have no
obligation to do anything except what is in their own interest, regarding less of the effect on
others as said also in the book. They have also argument which is support psychological
egoism for example if we describe one person’s action as unselfish, we are overlooking the
crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is only
doing what he wants to do as said in the book. To make it simple the first argument says that
the action of helping a person is an act of selfishness because in action of a person who wants
to help is doing it for himself because is motive is for his self gain. The second argument for
psychological egoism is this. Since so called unselfish actions always produce sense of self
satisfaction in agent, since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it
follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness, rather
than to bring about any good for others as stated on the book.

What I’ve learned

I’ve learned that the view of James Rachel is more on saying that man is Selfish and he
only cares for himself which is false for me. But to make it clearer I have learned that
Psychological Egoism is more on doing things for your own gain even if it’s helping others, it’s
mainly focusing on this topic of some more arguments about the psychological egoism and the

3
other one. I’ve also learned that in society according to Rachel in the society we are only doing
our part to keep the peace in it. The egoists will have no choice but to act in it, because it's
keeping balance in the society. As I have said doing their part of keeping the society.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Psychological Egoism

2. What is Ethical Egoism
3. What are the two arguments discussed in Psychological Egoism
4. Who is James Rachel
5. What is Egoism

Review Question

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What question about moralitity is raised by the story?

1. The legend of Gyges talks about a shepherd who found a magical ring and uses it for
his personal gain. Like seducing the queen and killing the king for the throne. The moral issue
here is what if there are two rings, one is given to a rogue and the other is virtuous man. Saying
that they act both the same because of the power given. Given the power of god, why shouldn’t
he use his power moral making it thinking for himself.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

2. Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything they do, that is
the only motive. Acting for his own gain only. Even if his helping a person, when helping a
person this may be said to be an act of unselfishness but he choose to do this action. He
wanted to help the person making an act of selfness. Ethical Egoism is, by contrast a normative
view about how men ought to act. It’s like psychological but it's more of self interest of man.
Regardless of effecting other people.

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

3. the first argument is "if we describe as selfish, and another person's action as
unselfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is
done voluntarily, the agent merely doing what he most wants to do." his reply is this argument is
so bad that it would not deserve to be taken seriously except for the fact that so many otherwise
intelligent people have taken in by it. He is telling us it depends on the people who only act for
their self interest only and contradicting it. His telling it it's about either obligation or interest of
action. The second argument is for psychological egoism “since so-called unselfish actions
always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent. This argument as he has said suffers
from defects similar to the previous one. Why should we think that merely because someone
derives satisfaction from helping others this makes him selfish? does dereive satisfaction from
helping others, while the selfish man precisely the one who does the selfish man does not.

4. What three commonplace confusion does Rachel's detect in the thesis of

psychological egoism?

4
 4. Rachel detects confusion of selfishness with self-interest. The two are clearly not
same. This is because selfish behavior is behavior that ignores the interest of others, in the
circumstance in which their interest ought not to be ignored. The second confusion is the
assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other regarding motives.
The third confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one's own welfare is
incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5. State the argument for saying egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn't Rachel’s accept
this argument?

5. it is inconsistent. The ethical egoist thinks we should pursue self-interest because we

can’t help but do so. But if we must pursue self-interest, as the premise states, then what’s the
point of saying we should? If psychological egoism is true, we can’t act any other way.

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

6. According to Rachel in the society we are only doing our part to keep the peace in it.
The egoist will have no choice but to act in it. Because it's keeping balance in the society. As I
have said doing their part.

Discussion Questions

1. Has Rachel’s answered the question raised by Gloucon, namely, "why be moral" if so,
what exactly is his answer?

1. Yes Rachel answered the question. "clearly, if either of these views is correct, hen
“moral institution of life" (to use Butler's well-turned phrase) is very different that what we
normally think. The majority of mankind is grossly deceived about is, or ought to be, the case,
where moral are concerned.

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

2. The answer to this is question is it depends on the behavior or personality of a person.

a popular quote in the bible " god created man in their own uniqueness"

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. In such a view immoral or not?

3. Immoral due to everyone action has his own choice. If this is true the world would be
perfect.

5
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Religion, Morality, and Conscience
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“Human Understanding is simply inadequate to his difficult and controversial task;

morality involves immensely complex problems, and we must consult religious revelation for
help”

- John Arthur

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This chapter of the book was written John Arthur, He Discusses what is morality, does it
need religion and why. He also discuss, and reject, three ways morality has been thought to
depend on religion motivation people could not be expected to do the right thing . He also is a
professor of philosophy and director of the program in Philosophy, Politics, and law at
Binghampton University. This particular chapter of the book talks about Morality and religion
where in John Arthur wherein he is telling us that morality and religion are both different that
they are only connected because of history. Morality is only influence by religion but they are
both different as I have said. He also gave brief example where in what would the religious man
do without moral, the answer would be he might be religious as a choice but he will never feel
guilt or resentment. Another issue in this chapter is Religious motivation and guidance. This
particular topic talks about when we are doing things that are good not necessarily it is because
of religion like for the example in the book the book of revelations it doesn’t mean you would do
specifically what the bible said because of the religions tell you to. The last topic of this chapter
is the Divine Right Theory talks about “The Divine Right Theory is not a theory as we
understand scientific theories because it does not hinge upon any hypothesis which can be
tested. With that The Divine Right Theory, also well known as divine right of kings, is the
doctrine that states the right of rules in a monarch (one ruler) is developed directly from God
and is only accountable to God because God created the state.” (This was taken at wiki
answers). Which is he rejected the theory because religious people consistently maintain their
faith in god the creator and yet deny that what is right is right because he commands it?

What I’ve learned:

I have learned that morality and religion are really different that they are just connected
because of history. Some people might see this as somehow insulting but he has point when he
rejected the divine right theory because of his belief that it is not basically right because it’s the
will of god. What if there is a sacrifice happening it makes it morally wrong. I have also learned
that religion really has a great influence over moral or sometimes the other way around. I have
also learned that not basically doing well is not basically an act of religion but an act of moral
only a little influence of religion. My observation is there are many religions but moral is the one

6
guiding them to what is right and wrong. It’s more of an influence factor like in the movie
Constantine influence is used (the bet of god and Lucifer)

Integrative Questions:
1. Who is John Arthur?
2. What is Morality and Religion?
3. What is the Divine Right Theory?
4. What is Conciseness?
5. Who is Dewey?

Review Question

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

1. Morality according to Arthur is moral is the action feeling of guilt and resentment
for things have been done and religion would satisfy as a belief to influence the
action.

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

2. It isn't necessary because religion is basically saying doing what is right. Is

made for a variety of body sees me-- what will him or her think? How will I feel
afterwards? Will I regret it?" or maybe thought of cheating just doesn’t arise. We
were raised to be decent person, and that's what we are-- period, behaving fairly and
treating others well is more important that whatever we might gain from stealing or
cheating. So making all the motives nothing to do with religion.

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

3. It isn't necessary because religion has deep meaning and some acts will be
justification. Like said in the book of revelation or the statement Arthur that an eye for
an eye depends on moral acts. So some of the religion acts isn’t the source of moral
knowledge

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

4. The Divine Right Theory is not a theory as we understand scientific theories

because it does not hinge upon any hypothesis which can be tested. With that The
Divine Right Theory, also well known as divine right of kings, is the doctrine that
states the right of rules in a monarch (one ruler) is developed directly from God and
is only accountable to God because God created the state. Also that God had given
those of royal birth a "divine right" to rule, without consent of the people. Arthur says
can religious people consistent maintain their faith in god the creator end yet deny
that what is right is right because he commands it. I think the answer to this is yes
making cruelly good is not like making universe that wasn't made, of course. It’s a
moral limit on god rather than logic

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

7
 5. They are connected because of historically. Two who have been shaped? The
relationship can go the other direction as well, however, as people moral views are
shaped by religious training and their current religious beliefs. these relationship are
often complex, hidden even from ourselves, but it does seem clear that our views on
important moral issues, from sexual morality and war to welfare and capital
punishment, are often influence in the religious outlook. so not only are religious and
moral practices and understanding historically linked, but for many religious people
the relationship extends to the personal level -- o their understanding of moral
obligations as well as their sense of who they are and vision of who they wish to be.

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

6. Dewey is telling us that it's more on moral point of view. Us not an actual
"community without" is transformed into a “forum and tribunal within exception." only
through the power of imagination can we exercise our moral powers, envisioning with
the power of judgment what conscience requires. According to Arthur as opposed to
the selfish one, instance, demands, that we reject our private, subjective perspective
in favor of the perspective of others, envisioning how they might respond to various
choices we might make.

Discussion Questions

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

1. He rejected it not deny it. He just said that there is issue that you can't prove.
Like the examples about god being the creator

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

nonhuman animals?

2. Our obligation to animals is that they are still living. Even if they cannot give
compassion the can show affection.

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

3. Dewey meaning by moral education is being thought of morality such of early

moral training, moral thinking depends on our ability to imagine others reaction and
to imaginatively put ourselves into their own shoes. In some situation the answer
might be yes

8
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Master and Slavery Morality
Library Reference: N/A

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204
Master and Slavery Morality
Quote:

“To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illustration about history of
the origin of an aristocratic society”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about Master and Slave Morality. It is written by Friedrich
Nietzsche who is a German philosopher and a poet who often viewed as a source of modern
existentialisms and deconstructionism. Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow
superior individuals to exercise their “will to power,” they derive toward domination and
exploitation of the inferior. The superior persons follow a “master morality” that emphasizes
power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as distinguished from a “slave morality “ that calls for
weakness, submission, sympathy, and love. He also talks about Will Power where in the ability
to be disciplined or take charge through the hard times or to make it simple the will to live by
surviving.

What I’ve learned:

I have learned from this chapter is he claiming is like the Nazism trying to create a super
human or somewhat Darwin’s theory of the strong shall survive and the weak shall perish
because of his statement of a healthy society is where in people who are strong while there is
no rooms for weak or emotion. For me it’s like being a soldier because when you’re in duty you
have orders because the golden rule for military is following orders of the superior, there is no
need for weakness, submission, sympathy, and love. Being treated like a soldier you should

9
emphasize on power, strength, egoism, and freedom. To make it simple it is the “master
morality and the “slave morality”. but there are some situation where in you have to make a
choice between the two were in for country or your own morality.

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is Friedrich Nietzsche

2. What is Will Power
3. What is Master Morality
4. What is Slave Morality
5. What is a Healthy Society

Review Questions:
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
1. It is where the strong shall govern and the weak shall be otherwise

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

2. It is for power and revolution of the society

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

3. Master morality is the value creator. Slave morality illustrates the virtue of
sympathy, kindness and humility.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

4. It achieve by will to do or to life struggling to attain.

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?
1. He is only proving a point but I think it kind of stating that Nazism is like a
healthy society because of their trying to create super human being were
in strong

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

2. The one who creates values and gives honor to what he/she is doing

10
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Trying out One’s New Sword
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:
“For a samurai to succeed in battle, his sword must be able to slice though someone in a
single swing, passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly,
in combat, the warrior would lose his honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his
ancestors.”
- Mary Midgley

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This chapter of the book is called Trying out one’s New Sword written by Mary Midgley.
She is teaches philosophy at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England for twenty years
and now she is retired, she is the author of numerous books including Animals and Why they
matter(1984), Beast and Man: the roots of human nature, Can’t we make Moral judgmental?
(1993), Science and Poetry (2001) and many more books. Midgley Attack Moral isolationism
where in you can’t judge other people culture if you don’t know or doesn’t have insufficient
knowledge about the other culture which is call criticism. She gave examples like the samurai
who is trying out one new sword, where in the samurai will test his sword on a stranger but
when sword didn’t work properly in combat the warrior would lose his honor, the respect of his
emperor and disgrace his ancestors. In some culture this is wrong but this is a culture of Japan
that is must be followed like ritual. Like a quote said “when in Rome do as the Romans do” but
some people criticize this topic because they are not thinking the set of mind when they are in a
different place particularly a location where in a new culture is there that you don’t know
therefore they are being judgmental.

What I’ve learned:

11
 I have learned that moral isolationism has a big flaw that she is right. We should be to
criticize of judge other culture because we might not have the knowledge to understand or to
comprehend the culture. If you are going to criticize a culture you should have the knowledge
Integrative Questions:

1. Who is Mary Midgley?

2. What is Moral Isolationism?
3. What is Moral Isolationism?
4. Is it right to try out one’s sword?
5. Who particularly Attacks Moral Isolationism?

Review Questions:
1. What is “moral isolationism”?
1. It is a view of anthropologists and other 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?
2. It is a practice of trying out new sword. When a samurai has a new sword he
has to try it on a stranger

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

3. Moral Isolationalism forbids any moral reasoning since it assumes that cultures
are separate and unmixed.

4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
4. If you have knowledge and taking part of it the you can criticize if not
otherwise
Discussion Questions:
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair
assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?
1. Yes because they have different points of views

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

12
2. No because the culture who are unmixed are like tradition. For example in
the Japanese culture there are traditions that are unmixed

13
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Utilitarianism
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“The Utilitarianism doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable,
as an end; all other things being desirable as meant to an end”
- John Stuart Mill

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about Utilitarianism. It is written by John Stuart Mill (live
from 1806 up to 1873) who is one of the most influential British philosophers. His important
works are in ethics are On Liberty (1859) and Utilitarianism (1850). Mill sets for the basic
principles of utilitarianism, including the principles of the Greatest Happiness Principle and the
hedonistic principle that happiness is pleasure. He explains the theory by replying to various
objections and considers with an attempt to prove the Principle of Utility

What I’ve learned:

I have learned what are Utilitarianism and the points of the principle of utility. I also
learned about Hedonistic Principle but I can't say agree with that principle because for
happiness is not the as pleasure.
I have also learned the points of view of john stuart mill of both of the theories.

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is John Stuart Mill?

2. What is Utilitarianism?

14
 3. What is the principle of utility?
4. What is Hedonistic principle?
5. Is happiness the same with 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.
1. Utility Principle is when we are happy it is a sign of moral. The action of
lying and stealing brings only sadness because it will go back to one self making it unhappy

2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy
only of swine?
2. He just pointed out his point of view

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

3. The higher is what we prioritize the lower are the material highs

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

4. Our Happiness and everyone

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

5. Happiness might be accomplish with other people through action of act of
kindness that brings happiness

Discussion Questions:
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure and the absence of pain? What do
you think?
1. No. it is more than that

2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than
the lower ones?
2. No because we have different wants and prioritization

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?

15
 3. No

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?
4. It is ok

16
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“The warning should heed. “ Common sense”

Indeed misleads us”
- James Rachel

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This Chapter Talks about the Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachel, he is a
professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. He has written book such
as The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality in 1986, Created from Animals: The Moral
Implications of Darwinism in 1990, and the Elements of Moral Philosophy.

He discusses and debates Utilitarianism. He points out that utilitarianism is a write

theory but it needs to be modify due to it need to be improve because of reasons like it is
morally wrong. There are some situations where in it is wrong.

There is a debate were in Mill and Bentham argues that classical utilitarianism is right
and gives three main prepositions. It also give the topic is happiness the things that matters.
James Rachel’s also gives examples to prove his point and answer some question along the
debate. Such as saying the three line of defense, the main point in this topic is telling it what is
wrong about this theory that it need to be change or yet improve.

What I’ve learned:

I have learned in this topic is that there is need to an improvement for utilitarianism that it
should not be above moral. I have understand both side to comprehend to give conclusion that
both side of utilitarianism of James Rachel and John Stuart Mill have right and sides

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is James Rachel?

2. Is happiness the only thing important?
3. What are the three line of defense?
4. What are the three prepositions?
5. Who is Betham?

17
Review Questions:

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

propositions. What are they?

1. Actions are judged by the right and the wrong and it depends on consequence.

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

respond to this problem?

2. Not all action makes happiness concludes that it doesn’t mean when you are
happy it is important

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

3. It is unrealistic because it doesn’t define what is happening in the real world

4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-

utilitarianism reply to the objections?

4. - Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism which states that moral

actions are those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good.

- Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the right action is
the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the
greatest number of people.

5. What is the third line of defence?

5. Act-Utilitarianism

Discussion Questions:

1. Smart’s defence of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when

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

1. No. because we have our own moral beliefs

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?

2. The one who should be considered are the people or things who do
immoral things

18
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration
independent of utility. Do you agree?

3. Yes

19
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Categorical Imperative
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“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 . . .”

- Emanuel Kant

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain

knowledge along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter is called The Categorical Imperative by Emanuel Kant, He is a
German, was one of the most important philosophers of all time. He made significant
contributions to all areas of philosophy. He wrote many books such as: All Feature
Metaphysics’, Critique of Practical Reasons, Critique of Judgment, and the foundation of the
Metaphysics of Moral.

Kant believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule, the
categorical imperative. From which all duties are derived. He talks about good will and tells us
what is good will is. He also talks about good will and it’s result saying that the setting which
enables us to handle it better in our ordinary dealing or to attract the attention of those not yet
sufficient experts , but to commend it to experts or to determine its values.

He also talks about the good will and duty where in good will is disguise rather being
contrast. His main topic is Categorical Imperative where in all duties are can be derived and he
gives many version about this.

What I’ve learned:

I have learned what is good will in such ways of “The Good Will”, “The Good Will and its
results”, and the Good Will and Duty; I have also learned what motive duty is. And Emanuel
Kant’s main issue the Categorical Imperative

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is Emanuel Kant?

2. What is Good Will?
3. What is Motive Duty?
4. What is the other version of Categorical Imperative?
5. What is Categorical Imperative?

20
 Review Questions:

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

1. Universally Good

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

2. It is doing your duties

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.
3. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law."

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

Discussion Questions:

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions
of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.
1. No

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.
2. Agree

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the

first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral actions. Is this a good
criticism?
3. No

21
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Happiness and Virtues
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“For to such persons, as to incontinent, knowledge brings no profit: but to those who
desire and act in accordance with rational principle knowledge about such matters will
be of great benefit”

- Aristotle

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about Happiness and virtues by Aristotle; He has made
many contributions in the line of to all philosophy including formulation of traditional logic.

Aristotle argues that all human beings seeks happiness and is not pleasure, honor, or
wealth, but an activity of soul in accordance with virtue. He tells us there are two kinds of virtue
the moral virtue and the intellectual virtue. Then he stated that all of man wants to achieve
happiness but he also stated that true happiness can only be achieved by animal. Aristotle also
stated that happiness is not pleasure that not all people are happy that they are not content
that like situation: a rich person has all material things but doesn’t have any companion to
share his fortune with or the other way around where a poor person who doesn’t have it all but
has a companion. Such has Aristotle stated that true happiness is only for beast as I have
mentioned earlier.

What I learned:

I have learned in this chapter is what is happiness and what is virtue. I have also learned
that there are two kinds of virtue such as Intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Also I learned the
difference points of happiness and pleasure

Integrative Question

1. Who is Aristotle?
2. What is Happiness?
3. What is Virtue?
4. What is Moral Virtue?
5. What is Intellectual Virtue?

22
Review Questions:

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

to pleasure?

According to Aristotle Happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the
soul in accordance to the virtue. Happiness is related to virtue because some people choose on
how to act. To be righteous or unjust. I will quote the definition of pleasure " The gratification of
the senses or of the mind; agreeable sensations or emotions; the excitement, relish, or
happiness produced by the expectation or the enjoyment of something good, delightful, or
satisfying; -- opposed to pain, sorrow, etc." it is how the person act relating it to pleasure. if the
person might be feeling of pleasure when helping others or discomfort. More on the emotion,
some people might feel miserable being virtues, but for example in the movie batman the dark
knight, someone needs to be a hero not for the glory but someone has to do it.

2. How does Aristotle explain Virtue?

According to Aristotle there are two kinds of virtue Moral Virtue and Intellectual Virtue,
Moral Virtue comes from training and habit, generally is a state of character that is a mean
between the vices of excess and deficiency. Intellectual Virtue produces the most perfect
happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation.

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

It is possible for everyone to be happy, removing all vices and discomfort but is
impossible to attain. because as I have seen and have read (I forgot the name of the book but
kind of relates to the episode of supernatural) every person relating to the 7 deadly sins. Greed,
Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Envy, Wrath and Sloth. this sins of man that I think impossible to remove.
Because everyone or almost everyone has this sins making it impossible for everyone to attain
happiness. as I can say the rest is history for examples.

Discussion Questions:

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

According to Aristotle a life of pleasure is indeed suitable for beasts because by trying to
attain all the pleasures in life that person will inevitably do something with great consequence.
That consequence will then make that person miserable. For me this of somewhat tricky
because having pleasure is a great feeling but too much pleasure can kill. All people want to
have pleasure but some or not that contented on what they have. so they sought and sought
making it impossible to attain as my understanding to Aristotle quotes but it's not wrong to
sought pleasure just make it balance. Not giving it all on one shot. It's kind of relation to the
movie pursuit of happiness. Will smith ask himself why firm people are so god damn happy are,
through many problems have been throw to him and his son when he was accepted that made

23
all the difference. It’s more of contentment, parching a thirst but the main problem is some
peoples thirst can never be replenished.

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

I have heard this quote from my PHILOMA teacher. it is possible for only philosopher to
be happy because of their understanding of what life is and what is essential to this world. But
my answer would be NO. Because not all people are philosophers but has the same
understanding. There are many people so it might be possible they may be happy with some set
of mind.

24
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: The Nature and Value of the Right
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:
“The Important thing is not what I’ve let into it, but what I have to kept
out”
- Joel Feinberg

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about the nature and values of right by Joel Feinberg; he is
a professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona. He is the author of Doing and deserving
(1970), Social Philosophy (1973), the moral limits of Criminal Law (1984-1989) and Freedom
and Fulfillment (1994) Feinberg want to demonstrate that rights are morally important. Therein
he illustrates Nowhereville, a world same as ours but people have no rights. Resulting that
people has no moral right consequential there is no claim in what is justly or not. He also
defined duty I can’t really define it so I’m getting source from a site such as Wikipedia – Duty is
a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral
commitment is the sort that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere
recognition. Feinberg also define what is right with the help of rights and duties

What I learned:

· The Concept of Nowhereville

· Nature and Values of the right
· Duty and rights

Integrative Question

25
1. Who is Joel Feinberg?
2. What is the concept Nowhereville?
3. What is Right?
4. What is Duty?
5. Clarify the right to complain?

Review Questions:

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

1. A place where it is the same but we have no rights

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

* All duties entail other people’s rights

* All rights entail other people’s duties

3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would
personal desert work in Nowheresville?
3. If we have rights It can work

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

Nowheresville according to Feinberg?
4. Introducing the rights to Nowheresville, but it’s more of a gamble because of the
chances of bias that might happen

5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?
5. It is claiming of a right that is entitled to you

Discussion Questions:

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why
or why not?
1. No. because his explanation to the theory got lost when introducing and clashes
that somehow got lost in the process

26
2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?
2. No

27
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: Taking Right Seriously
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:
“Conversely, some- things may be the right thing for him to d and yet may no right to do
it, in the sense that it would not e wrong for someone to interfere with his
trying”
- Ronald Dworkins

Learning Expectations:

My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about Taking Right Seriously by Ronald Dworkins, he is a
professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford University, He authored book such as a matter of principle
(1985), Law Empire (1986), A Bill of Right for Britain and many more Dworkins view is if a
person has the right to do something, then it is wrong to be meddle in their way. To make the
part of the chapter clearly we have our rights if it’s taken somehow our happiness is taken with
it. The question is what really the definition of RIGHTS is – (definition was taken from Wikipedia
– Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. Rights are of vital importance in
theories of justice and deontological ethics. By meaning of rights as define it tell us what are we
entitled to but sometimes it gets conflicted or somewhat ignored. There are many kinds of rights.

What I learned:

· What is Rights?
· What kind of rights we have
· Rights of the people

Integrative Question

28
1. Who is Ronald Dworkins?
2. What is Rights?
3. What are the people rights?
4. What are our rights?
5. What can be conflicted with our rights?

Review Questions:
1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this
sense are protected by the U.S. Constitution?
1. One rights must not be interfere because his doing the right thing

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.
2. This definition is from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/ “Legal
rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems. They raise
a number of different philosophical issues.” This definition is from Wikipedia
Natural rights, also called moral rights or inalienable rights, are rights which are
not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity.

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

4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or
rights?
4. Act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities

Discussion Questions:

1. Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?
1. It depends on the situation of need
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
2. Yes
3. Do you think that Kant would accept right in the strong sense or not?
3. Yes

29
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: A Theory of Justice
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“Whether men are free is determined by the rights and duties established y the major
institutions of society.”
- John Rawl

Learning Expectations:
My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about A Theory of Justice by John Rawl. He is also the
author of many philosophical books like Justice as Fairness: A Restatement in 2001 and The
Law of Peoples in 2001 as well and A Theory of Justice in 1971.

Justice is defined in Wikipedia “Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on

ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key
features of society.” Raw said that there are two kinds of justice. The first principle talks about
equal basic liberty while the second principle talks about the arrangement of social and
economic inequalities.

Lesson Learned
· Definition of Justice
· Background about John Rawl
· Theory of Justice
· The Two Principles of Justice

Integrative Questions:
1. Who is John Rawl?
2. What Is Justice?
3. What is the principle of justice?
4. Distinguish the two principle of justice?

30
 5. What is legal right?

Review Questions

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

1. Rawls describe the original position as equality and fairness to all people

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

2. He just stated liberties about the principles

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

3. The second principle involves economic inequalities.

Discussion Questions:

1. on the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic
liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others.
What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people
have right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t
interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does
not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the
privacy of their homes?

1. Yes. Free will entitle us to let us do anything expect when someone is interfering

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?

2. It depends on the belief of a person

31
Contemporary Moral Problem Chapter 1: The Need for More than Justice
Library Reference: N/A

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

Quote:

“For whether the supposed blind spots of that outlook are due to male bias, or to
nonparent bias, or to early resignation to “detachment” from others, we need first to be
persuaded that they are blind spots before we will have any interest in their cause and cure.”

- Annette Baier
Learning Expectations:
My learning expectation is to know what this theory message and to gain knowledge
along the way that I can apply to life what I have just learned.

Review:

This part of the chapter talks about “The Need for More than Justice” by Annette Baier.
She is a teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. She has author several books like
A Progress of Sentiments: Reflection on Hume’s Treatise (1991) and Moral Prejudices: Essays
on Ethics (1995)

Her Theory is more on a woman’s perspective that like other philosophers for example
Kant and Rawl who theories said to be on a men’s perspective. For this theory is more on
justice where in the government needs to take care of their citizens like the example of the
mother who has a child, there should be a care for people. The people who commits crime will
be lessen because they’re set of mind might change telling them there is no need to such
action. It contradicts with the theory of what is a healthy society by Friedrich Nietzche because
for him the theory is about the weak is such hindrances while the strong shall govern. To make
it simple she wants the people to take care of the weak through the governance of the
government.

Lesson Learned:

· The changes in society by justice

· The importance of justice
· The Moral Theory
· I have learned that Annette Baier is the only one who has a theory about taking care
of the weak for justice (this is the theory I have read so far)

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is Annette Baier?

2. How does this affect how people live?
3. What is Moral Theory?
4. Why did Kantian framework dominate the Western moral theory?
5. What are the things she wanted to harmonize together?

32
Review Questions:

1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how
do these perspectives develop?
1. According to Gilligan these perspectives develop by arguing that the perspective of
caretakers fulfills people’s emotional needs to be attached to something. She argues
that care is an ethical system to supplement liberal theories of justice. Women are
more concern with substantive principle moral matters of care.

2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and

Baier make of this theory?
2. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has three part or sub theories. The criticism
that was by these theories is empirical correlations in gender and more perspective was
not uniform. Another 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?
3. These differences are the relative weight put on relationships between equal, the
relative weight put on freedom of choice, and the authority of intellect over emotions.

4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly
passions?
4. Baier attack the Kantian view that reason should control unruly passions because
she does not support or even believe in the Kantian theory. By her close mindedness she is not
open to other views

Discussion Questions:

1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of
our patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do
we abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and right?
1. No, new values just improve older values but not literally replace them, old values are
still kept.

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?

33
 2. For me there is nothing wrong with it. I think that Baier should be opening her own
mind to other views as well.

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?
3. Yes, this is in fact very important because freedom is important and is a privilege. But
sometime reason hinders the choices we make from freedom. Thus limiting are
freedom, is think what will also limit our justice as well.

34