De La Salle College of St. Benilde

De La Salle College of St.
Benilde
Contemporary Moral
Problems
By: Jaeco Riel L. Ronquillo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution

Attribution-No
No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
2/24/2010
Table of Content:
Chapter One: Ethical Theories:
James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism……………………………..…………3
John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience……………………………………..4
Fredrich Nietzsche: Master- And Slaeve- Morality…………………………………....5
Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword……………………………………...…6
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism………………………………………………………..7
James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism……………………………………......8
Immanuel kant: The Categorical Imperative…………………………………………....9
Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue………………………………………………………...10
Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights………………………………………...11
Ronald Dworkin: Taking rights seriously……………………………………………….12
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice………………………………………………………...13
Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice…………………………………………14
2|P age
Title: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Author: James E. White
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234087861&sr=1-1
Library Reference: N/A
What I expect to learn:
I want to learn what Egoism and Moral Scepticism means and be able to distinguish the difference between the two.
Quote:
“The thing to be lamented is, not that men have so great regard to their own good or interest in the present world,
for they have not enough”
Review:
Let us first absorb the definition of the two sceptical views suggested by Glaucon. According to Glaucon the
psychological egoism is the 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. Second is the ethical egoism it is 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 interests. This chapter discusses different sceptical views saw by different people but majority of the
discussions end on how a person acts on its self-interests. Most of the time a person is motivated by his/her own
advantage. We can say that most of our acts are based on our self-interests we tend to do things because we can
benefit from it. We tend to forget that our acts can affect other people negatively or positively. You can say that
anything that benefits a person is selfish. For example, the story of Gyges a shepherd who was said to have found a
magic ring that would grant its bearer invisibility. He used it to gain power, he seduced the Queen and murdered its
King. But, sometimes your selfish act can also benefit other people’s life that is said to be an unselfish act.
What I have learned:
I was able to understand the concept of Egoism and Moral Scepticism. I also learned the difference between the two.
Integrative Questions:
1. What is psychological egoism?

2. What is ethical egoism?
3. What is the difference between the two sceptical views?
4. What makes a person selfish?
5. How can you say that a person is unselfish?
3|P age
Title: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

I want to learn the John Arthur’s concept on Religion, Morality and Conscience.
Quote:
“Morality is social”
Review:
Morality is to evaluate the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions when we perform them. On the other
hand, Religion involves beliefs in supernatural powers that created and perhaps also control nature, the tendency to
worship and pray to those supernatural forces or beings, and the presence of organizational structures and
authoritative texts. They are importantly different because the first act involves our attitudes toward different
behaviors. It is expressed using the rules and laws. On the other hand, typically involves prayers, worships and
beliefs about supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts. I agree that Morality does not depend on
Religion. According to the book our moral code depends on other people’s behavior and the guilt of what a person
do. Not everyone on the world believes to only one God, there are many kinds of religions all over the world. Our
actions are not based on our religious beliefs. It is based on what we see that serves as our value, attitude and
behavior. Religion only serves as a path to do things the right way.
What I have learned:
I was able to understand John Arthur’s concept of Religion, Morality and Conscience.
1. What is Morality?
2. What is Religion?
3. Do you agree that Morality is not based on Religion? Why?
4. Can you be religious without believing on supernatural things?
5. How can you say that your actions is based on morality not on religion?
4|P age
Title: Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality

I want to learn what Nietzche is trying to point out. I also want to learn what Master and Slave Morality means.
Quote:
“He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one”
Review:
Master and Slave morality? What does it mean? How do this two differ? According to Nietzche, master morality
emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom. You can say that master morality is the people who underestimate
others. On the other hand, slave morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. In short, master
morality is on top of slave morality. This chapter shows that the world cannot have one only one of this two. There
should always be both to maintain the balance. All men wants to have power, they always want to somehow to be
under his command. No one wants to be under and be controlled by others. They will always fight and it will always
result to one master and one a slave. Based on my experience, one morality cannot exist. Look at what brought you
your country? Did you think you could bring the name of your country without war? Power? Slavery? How can your
country grow if you don’t have a leader and followers? Do you think that your country can stood without a leader?
You cannot understand the true meaning of life if you don’t become a leader and a follower.
What I learned:
I was able to learn what Nietzsche tried to say. I also understand that master morality is the one above and slave
morality is the one under.
1. What is master morality?

2. What is slave morality?
3. Do you agree that one morality exists?
4. Can you call yourself a leader without a follower?
5. How can you be a noble man?
5|P age
Title: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

I want to absorb what Midgley is trying to point out. I also want to understand how the title of the chapter related to
its contents.
Quote:
“To try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer”
Review:
In this chapter Midgley want the readers to understand the concept of criticizing he used the term moral isolationism
which means that you cannot criticize a culture if you don’t understand it that much. He used the classic Japanese
verb “to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer”. The story goes that when a new samurai is made it is to be
tested on a wayfarer. If the samurai cuts the wayfarer to two is said to be a good sword. But, when the samurai fails
to cut the wayfarer it fails. It can injure the bearers honor, offend his ancestor and even let down his emperor. Based
on my experience, I also judge things by how I see it. Midgley is trying to point out using moral isolationism is that
we must not judge things or people based on what we see. We should first try to understand and appreciate why it
acts like that. My professor once told a story about the Muslims, when a girl is raped the family should kill the
victim in order to regain its honor. I cannot see why such actions are allowed to be practiced, but when you tried to
appreciate and understand their culture you will then be lightened that their actions is fair. I can now say that
criticism should not be based only from what you see, but you should see it from different point of views.
What I learned:
I absorbed what Midgley is trying to point out. I also understand the connection of the title to its contents.
1. What is Moral Isolationism?

2. Do you think criticizing other culture is right? Based only on what you see.
3. Do you think that the samurai practice is right?
4. Can you say that a material can determine if you live or die?
5. If you will be baptized today as a Muslim, can you accept their culture of killing your sister when raped?
6|P age
Title: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

I want to understand the concept of Utilitarianism.
Quote:
“What was once desired as an instrument for the attainment of happiness, has come to be desired for its own sake”
Review:
Mill is emphasizing the meaning and importance of happiness. The chapter is trying to point out that if our action is
right then it is happiness but if our action is wrong then it is bad. Mill’s view is somewhat contrary to what I believe.
Mill said that pleasure does not satisfy our happiness. I really don’t think that without pleasure there is happiness.
For example, you were so hungry and wanting to eat, and then your friend asks you to go to lunch that is on him.
When you were done eating you can say that you are satisfy and happy but can you say that the food did not
pleasure you? For me, this article depends on the definition of the reader because for me satisfaction is pleasure.
Having standards with your happiness can result you to unhappiness. You tend to degrade the happiness you are
wanting. Happiness is the result of things you did that you alone. In Mills view you can only gain happiness by
his/her actions alone. For Mill, utilitarianism is the attainment of simply happiness. You should not set standards or
expectations in order to attain happiness that putting barriers that can result to unhappiness.
What I learned:
I understand the concept of Utilitarianism.
1. What is utilitarianism?
2. Do you think pleasure is not satisfaction?
3. Do the actions of other really make you happy?
4. What makes you happy?
5. Do you think having standards with your happiness is right?
7|P age
Title: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

I want to understand what Rachel is trying to point out. I want to know the arguments on utilitarianism.
Quote:
“Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences”
Review:
Let us first discuss the definition of Hedonism, it is the idea that happiness is the ultimate good and unhappiness the
one ultimate evil. There are three arguments inside this article. First is justice, the writer gave an example about the
Negroes raping and killing, that part of article for me is right. You cannot punish an innocent person because of his
race? Because he/she was there in the crime scene? The innocent man has the right to be treated fairly. The
utilitarianism treated him justly. Second is rights, the writer used a criminal case as an example. The argument was
right because of the next example the writer gave about the peeping. It was almost the same but not with the
negative degree. Third is backward-looking reasons, it easily shows the importance of the present rather than the
past like what the writer’s example of promising to see a friend in the future. This arguments shows how happiness
overcomes unhappiness no matter what.
What I learned:
I understand what Rachel is trying to point out and I also learned the arguments on utilitarianism.
1. What is Hedonism?
2. What are the three arguments in this article?
3. Do you think happiness overcomes unhappiness?
4. Are you utilitarian or antiutilitarian?
5. Which argument stands best for this article?
8|P age
Title: Immanuel Kant: The categorical Imperative

I want to understand Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.
Quote:
“The moral worth of an action does not depend on the result epected from it, and so too does not depend on any
principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result”
Review:
This article talks about the good will and duty. The writer is telling us that not all we think or act is good, you can
say that it is good depending on the actor. Kant also discussed the result or the proposed end of an action. For Kant,
will is not enough to make a person move or do something there is more than just will. According to Immanuel Kant
good will does not show when you did something good or the result of your action. You can say a good will is a
satisfaction for the actor that can also serve happiness to the people around the actor. Kant said that it is hard to
perceive a duty with addition to inclination to the action. The writer expresses that if you perform duties your
character can be shown and allow other people to see the good and beauty of your character.
What I learn:
I understand Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.
1. What is immediate inclination?

2. What is categorical imperative?
3. What is a will?
4. Do you think the author right this article based from research or experience?
5. How can you say that you have a good will?
9|P age
Title: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

I expect to understand Aristotle point of view in happiness and virtue.
Quote:
“All human seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth”
Review:
This chapter shows the search for true happiness. Aristotle believes that people are trying to seek for happiness. He
also said that happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth. There are three prominent types in life these are enjoyment,
political and contemplative life these are the different level of happiness. They mentioned the characteristics of
happiness for other people it has a condition that in order to attain happiness for others you should have a virtue.
Virtue is being morally good. Aristotle said that happiness is above all else because we tend to choose always for
itself and never for the sake of something else but honor, pleasure, reason and every virtue we choose indeed for
themselves resulted from them we should still choose each. He divided it into three classes. You can relate virtue to
good will because both of them can be related to the act of doing well. The question is do you acquire happiness by
learning or it comes in virtue of some divine providence or by chance. You can say that happiness is god-given.
What I learned:
I understand Aristotle categorical imperative
1. How can you say that you achieved happiness?

2. What is virtue?
3. What are the three prominent types of life?
4. Do you think you can achieve happiness without being selfish?
5. Do you agree that happiness is god-given?
10 | P a g e
Title: Joel Feinberg: The nature and value of rights

I expect to learn the concept of Feinberg’s nature and value of rights.
Quote:
“Never Entirely forget their pasts”
Review:
Feinberg wanted his reader to imagine a place with no-holds-bar. And he named the place Nowheresville. It is a
place that has no law. You can do anything you want without being accountable for it. You can steal, kill or
anything you want to do May it be in a good or bad way. He cited his philosophy along side with Immanuel Kant’s
philosophy regarding duties. Feinberg use a legal duty, it is not something we are implored or advised to do buy it is
the law that requires us to be penalized whether we want it or not. He used the example of a car accident, you don’t
have the right to complain that the other driver crashes his car to your new car. This article caught my eye because
of the word Nowheresville it challenged me understand fully the contents of it. The article emphasizes on the rights
of a human being, how important to know your rights as a person. He discussed the doctrine of the logical
correlativity of rights and duties. It is the doctrine that entails other people’s duties. Only the first party of the
doctrine is somewhat connected to our article. Every person has the right to have his rights as a citizen of the
society. You can never say that a person has no rights. No one will be accountable for anything he do.
What I learned:
I learned to concept of Feinbergs and value of rights
1. What is a Nowheresville?
2. Do you think we have the right to have rights?
3. Can you last on a Nowheresville?
11 | P a g e
Title: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

I want to learn Ronald Dworkin’s concept of rights.
Quote:
“People have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them”
Review:
Ronald Dworkin has a view about the concept of rights that each people has a right to do something they want and
must not control each and interfere them in each decision that they made. Each people have the concept of rights to
do what they want to do. In this part he also discusses the rights in political society which is said that, government
has the right to make laws and decision but not for individualities. That there are some government who control the
whole country and without knowing that people has the freedom of speech to express what they want for them. He
discuss the different rights that people must know not just the philosophers. The philosophers are there to study it
and expand our knowledge about what we can have more and what we can know more. And he also said that there is
a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the
right thing for him to do, or that he does no wrong in doing it. There is a big different in doing the right thing for
yourself and someone is telling you that it is right for you. It’s a different concept that people must remember and
know about.
What I learned:
I learned the different concept of rights and what should people know about rights. The limit that we should do on
what is right and wrong.
1. What Does Dworkin says about rights?

2. How does he relate this to morality?
3. How can we know if we’re doing the right thing?
4. Are we sure of our rights?
5. What are the things we must know about our rights in the government?
12 | P a g e
Title: Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice

I expect to learn the need for more justice. What do we need for our justice.
Quote:
“Care perspective is less authoritarian humanitarian supplement”
Review:
In this part of the book the author discuss the concept of justice. On how do we people need for more justice. What
are the points that we must know and remember to get our Justice? Who are the people who get most of the justice,
that we must all be fair in every decision. People do need more to know justice, each of us has the right to have
justice in every way that we need it.
What I learned:
I learned the concept of justice and what are the needs for more justice.
1. Who is Annette Barier?

2. How does she discuss the needs for justice?
3. What is Justice?
4. How do we attain our justice?
5. What is the need for justice?
13 | P a g e
Title: Rawls: A Theory of Justice


I expect to learn more about the theory of justice.
Quote:
“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: reasonably expected to be to everyone’s
advantage and attached to position and offices open to all”
Review:
This is where they discuss the two kind of principle for justice which is:
a. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for
others.
b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: reasonably expected to be to everyone’s
advantage and attached to position and offices open to all.
Which in the first part they tell that people must have the basic liberty and equality for justice. That each must have
the similar liberty for justice and others. We all have the right to know the right and wrong. And the second part
discuss the social and economical inequalities that must be fixed by the office of our country. Because of the
different kind and positions of the people, we were given different justices and that is the one thing that must be
fixed and be faced on.
What I learn:
I learned the two concept of justice
1. What are the two concept of justice?

2. What are the theory of justice?
3. What is Justice?
14 | P a g e

De La Salle College of St. Benilde

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

De La Salle College of St. Benilde

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

De La Salle College of St.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution

Chapter One: Ethical Theories:

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism……………………………..…………3

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience……………………………………..4

Fredrich Nietzsche: Master- And Slaeve- Morality…………………………………....5

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword……………………………………...…6

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism………………………………………………………..7

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism……………………………………......8

Immanuel kant: The Categorical Imperative…………………………………………....9

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue………………………………………………………...10

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights………………………………………...11

Ronald Dworkin: Taking rights seriously……………………………………………….12

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice………………………………………………………...13

Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice…………………………………………14

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

What I have learned:

1. What is psychological egoism?

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

What I have learned:

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

1. What is master morality?

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

“To try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer”

1. What is Moral Isolationism?

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

I want to understand the concept of Utilitarianism.

I understand the concept of Utilitarianism.

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

“Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences”

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

I want to understand Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.

I understand Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.

1. What is immediate inclination?

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

What I expect to learn:

I expect to understand Aristotle point of view in happiness and virtue.

I understand Aristotle categorical imperative

1. How can you say that you achieved happiness?

Author: James E. White