Class Discussions

1. Explain the rights theory.

Rights Theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious,
government must approach the making and enforcement of laws with the right intentions
in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members of society of society
agree to give up some freedoms for protection enjoyed by organized society, but
governments cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens had been promised. (“Right
Theory,” n.d).
When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed
morally justifiable, the intension of entering into war ought to be right in relation to
human rights. Kant’s principle of rights theory thus teaches that it is not merely the
outcome of actions that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because if the
intent is evil, then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad aswell.

2. Differentiate a legal from moral right.

-Legal is not always moral. Legal right denotes all the rights found within
existing legal codes, legal rights are those rights that are provided to us through things
like the Constitution and include things like the right to bear arms or freely practice a
chosen religion. These are rights that are man-made and are a set of laws that people in a
specific society must follow. (For example, it has been argued that humans have a
natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights. Legal
rights are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures.
An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens). Moral right is not necessarily
legal. Moral rights are rights that exist to prior to and independent from their
counterparts. The existence and validity of moral rights is not deemed to be dependent
upon the actions of jurist and legislation. Many people argued, for example, that the
black majority in apartheid South Africa possessed a moral right to full political
participation in that country's political system, even though there existed no such legal
right. For example, the right to be treated fairly or the right to have privacy.
3. Explain Kant’s categorical imperative.

-Kant’s Categorical imperative talks about one’s duty whether to act on principle
or maxim. His categorical imperative is a deontological ethical theory, which means it is
based on the idea that there are certain objective ethical rules in the world. “Deontology”
comes from the Greek word “deon” meaning duty – in other words,
Deontological minded philosophers believe we have a duty to act in certain ways, in
accordance with moral laws. For Kant there was only one such categorical imperative,
which he formulated in various ways. Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” is a purely formal or
logical statement and expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that
of its morality. So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another,
always as an end, and never as only a means.

4. For Kant, what is role of reason in living morally

Kant argues that reason directs human wills to operate within the standard of moral law.
By conforming to moral law, one is invariably acting in accordance to the categorical
imperative, in which an agent performs an action because it ought to be performed, rather
than hypothetical imperative, which is prompted by sensual and selfish desires. Reason
for him is what deems an action ethical or otherwise. Kant believes that when we wish to
determine the moral status of an action, we consult reason. An act either accords with
reason or it does not. If it accords with reason, we must do it, if not, we must avoid it. He
believes that one of one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a will
which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself

5. Relate good will and acting from sense of beauty

-If you have executing or doing a Good will then it is like acting from sense of
beauty because good will is one that habitually rightly. And is not what good will
achieves that constitutes its goodness. Good will is good itself.
6. Explain Kant’s acting on maxims.
-As we have seen, maxim is a general is a general rule or principle which serves as
a guide to action. “Don’t wear the wedding gown before the wedding” Be honest
always”, are examples of maxim. Evidently, not all maxims are moral ones. Kant is
concerned with maxims that are moral, that is, those dictated by reason and thus have
imperative force. More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be
such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim
when in a similar situation.

7. Compare and contrast hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

-A hypothetical imperative is how reason orders one to achieve one’s specific
ends. It directs one to behave on certain manners on the condition that one seeks specified
goals, such as; if you wish to pass, then study hard. So it’s like a decree stating that if you
wish to accomplish such-and-such an end, you must act in such-and-such a way. Some
hypothetical imperatives are concerned with mere prudential actions. Simply a rule for
obtaining some desired ends, a hypothetical imperative is accepted not on its own merits.
Hypothetical imperative is thus both contingent or conditional, because circumstances are
imaginable where studying hard would still not result in passing and in such situations the
maxim may no longer be accepted. On the other hand, categorical imperative says that
No matter what end you desire to attain, act in such-and-such a way” Clearly, it
commands a person to act in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or
what one’s end may be. Categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will
guarantee that a person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally and it serves as
the barometer of reason determining whether or not an action qualifies as ethical

8. For Kant, what is an authentically moral act

- For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that it be an act of a free agent. The is,
must be a voluntary action, not a forced or compelled one. In addition however, it must
be an act done not from inclination but from a sense of duty dictated by reason.
Moreover, acting morally entails acting from motive of duty regardless of the
 consequences that doing so or not doing it- that is, to act from a sense of prudence-is only
to a prudential act, but not necessarily a moral one. Therefore, it is only when we
recognize that we ought to do an act because it is our duty, understand the nature of this
obligation, and act upon it that we are said to perform an authentically moral act.

9. Explain; “what is legal is not always moral.

-Legal is not always moral because legal denote all the rights found within existing
legal codes, it can have also wrong immoral consequences even if the content of
particular laws. There is no reason to believe that just because a law passes, it is for the
best or that it is right or moral, even if the people passing it think it is. For example
Getting divorced for the sake of alimony and claiming alimony from husband, despite a
much stronger academic and financial potential” is legal but not moral. Or killing animals
for food is legal but not moral.

10. Differentiate between the rights and virtue theories.

- Rights are inalienable rights of every person, regardless of nationality, gender,
ethnicity, color, religion, place of residence, language or any other sign. All people
equally have rights, eliminating all kinds of discrimination. Everyone should respect the
rights of others. For example you want to choose or change your religion you have the
right to choose what religion you want to.
-A virtue is a stable disposition to act and feel according to an ideal or model of
excellence. Virtue theorists think that acting out of duty alone is a distortion of true
morality For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations
over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize
utility or gain favors or simply do her duty
1. What is utilitarianism? Explain.
-Utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological
moral theory. A teleological system judges the rightness of an act in terms of an
external goal or purpose. Its basis in the determination of what one ought (or ought
not) to do rest exclusively on the consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor
the traditional moral rules. Utilitarianism states that what is useful is good, and what
the moral value of actions are determined by the utility of its consequences. Arguing
that the consequences of an act is what make it either moral or immoral, it explains
that those actions that bring about favourable effects are moral while those that
produce damaging results are immoral. Utilitarianism is thus essentially opposed to
ethical theories that consider God’s will or some inner sense or faculty, like
conscience, to be final arbiter of morality.

2. Explain the nature of moral judgements in utilitarianism.

-Moral judgement in utilitarianism is arguing that the consequences of an act is
what make either moral or immoral, it explains that those actions that bring
favourable effects are moral while those that produce damaging results are immoral.
Utilitarianism argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall
happiness. This ethical system is basically hedonistic as it defines happiness with
pleasure. In general, it puts forward that an action is right if it amplifies pleasures and
minimizes pain.

3. Differentiate Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism,

-Bentham explain that ‘utility’ means that property in any object, whereby it tends
to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or to prevent the happening of
mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness. For him, it is the principle of utility-not the-so-called
natural law, natural rights, or social contracts- which serves as the objective barometer in
ethically evaluating human action, state laws and legal systems. Bentham observes that
people act in their own interest. For him, this should be understood in terms of pleasure
and pain, for people are essentially seekers of pleasure and avoiders of pain. Bentham
wrote that pleasure and pain are tow sovereign masters under which nature gas placed
mankind. They concepts pleasure and pain spell the scope an limit of Bentham’s ethical
system. (1) intensity, (2) duration (3) certainty (4) propinquity (or remoteness)
(5)fecundity(or fruitfulness) (6) purity and (7) extend, this seven criteria methods or
ingredients which pleasure and pain are shared among the greatest number of people.
-Mills differs fundamentally from Bentham on two central aspects. First, Mills
rejects the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of utility; second, he introduces
the co called ;secondary principle’ which set the tone for a contemporary variant form of
the theory called rule utilitarianism. Concerning the first point, Mill distinguished
between higher and lower pleasures. Addressing the criticism that utilitarianism basely
defines man in terms of mere pleasure and pain, Mill cites Epicurus who explained that
while the good or happy life of pleasure, it does not mean only sensual pleasure. Physical
pleasures belong to the lower pleasures or those animas, too, can experience, such as
those from food, drink, and sex. He declared that “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’ By
the higher pleasure, basically means intellectual, which includes artistic, political and
even spiritual pleasures.

4. What are the advantages in subscribing to utilitarianism?

-Utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Basically anchored on the pleasure and
pain concepts. Utilitarianism hast transcultural appeal as all sentiment beings
understand pain and pleasure. Simulating tha cause and effect reasoning in science, it
proves an action to be right or wrong by pointing to observable evidence. As it based
on perceptible effect, it promotes actions that empirically improve life on earth.
Somehow therefore, utilitarianism inspires and encourages people to act morally,
even if one does not believe in an afterlife, for moral actions can be observed to
improve life on earth. Another advantage of utilitarianism is it allows for exception to
the rule if justified by the consequences. Example

5. What are the weaknesses of utilitarian theory in ethics?

 -The weakness of utilitarianism receives some negative criticisms. For one thing,
it is not easy to foresee with certainty the consequences if actions. In effect, thus
demands us to perform a computation that we practically do not have time to do
before acting.

6. Contrast consequentialist ethics with absolutist ethical theory.

-Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules, or policies should be
ethically measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by the intentions or
motives of the agent. An opposed to absolutist who hold that some actions are
intrinsically wrong and must never be done no matter what results are,
consequentialist suppose that there is no kind of act which may not be justified by its
effects. Absolutist believe I natural law or in natural rights which render some acts-
those which violate those rights or conflict with that law-as immoral. No matter what
their outcomes are. Consequentialist, on the other hand, believe that there is no class
of actions which must be ruled out in advance independent of their consequences.
 ETHICS
NAME: VILLANUEVA DANELLE VINCENT T.

YEAR/SECTION: HRM 1-1

TEACHER: JERIC D. CARREON