Microsoft Word - CMP

8/14/2019 Microsoft Word - CMP

1/23

Cont

This work is licensed under a Creati

mporary Moral Problems: Book Review

Submitted By:

Empino, Romir Gian O.

10654607/ BS-IS

ive Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Phili

1

pines License.


2/23

2

Preface

Contemporary Moral Problems consists of various authors whose goals are only to open the

minds of their readers about their works. My job is to formulate a review and other stuffs that might

discuss some key concepts based on my own understanding. I would like to dedicate this work to my

family, friends and love one.

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.

-Bill Cosby


3/23

3

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Egoism and Moral Scepticism:James Rachelsp. 4

Chapter 2 : Religion, Morality and Conscience:John Arthur.p. 6

Chapter 3: Master- and Slave- Morality: Friedrich Nietzschep.

Chapter 4: Trying Out Ones New Sword: Mary Midgley.p. 10

Chapter 5: The Debate over Utilitarianism:James Rachels. p. 12

Chapter 6: The Categorical Imperative: Immanuel Kant.p. 14

Chapter 7: The Nature of Value and Rights:Joel Feinberg.p. 16

Chapter 8: Taking Rights Seriously: Ronald Dworkin.p . 18

Chapter 9: A Theory of Justice:John Rawls.p. 20


4/23

4

Chapter 1

Egoism and Moral Scepticism:James Rachels

Source: Contemporary Moral Problems Book

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

White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: Our ordinary thinking about morality is full assumptions that we almost never question

Expected to Learn

To learn the concept of Egoism and Moral Scepticism of James Rachels.

Review

At first, James Rachels ask for a question if we know the legend of Gyges. Then he tell that story all

about a shepherd that have found a magic ring in a fissure opened by and earthquake. It will make the

bearer invisible so, upon knowing its powers, he plan to pass a Royal Palace to seduce the queen in

order for him to kill the king and seized the throne. He also discusses the psychological and ethical

egoism wherein the Psychological egoism is the belief of men that doing an action will benefit his

interest while ethical egoism is also the same with psychological egoism but there is a breach on other

peoples interests. He also discusses the two arguments, in which related to Psychological egoism. The

arguments are: The first argument is that the people can do things based on their own perspective and

the second one: actions are being done for the sake of others. he also states the three commonplace

confusions related to psychological egoism. The three commonplace confusions are a). Selfishness with

self-interests,b). Assumption that every action is done either from self-interest and c). The common but

false assumption that a concern for ones own welfare is incompatible with others. the book alsoexplains the statement of Rachels that ethical egoism is inconsistent.

Things I learned

I learned key concepts of James Rachels about the Egoism and Moral Scepticism.

Review Questions:

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

- The legend of Gyges is a story were in a shepherd had found a magic ring in a fissure opened byand earthquake. It will make the bearer invisible so, upon knowing its powers, he plan to pass a Royal

Palace to seduce the queen in order for him to kill the king and seized the throne. The main question

raised by this legend is it moral to use a extraordinary power for the good of the greed?


5/23

5

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

- Psychological egoism is the belief of men that doing an action will benefit his interest while ethical

egoism is also the same with psychological egoism but there is a breach on other peoples interests.

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

does he reply to them?

- The first argument is that the people can do things based on their own perspective and the second

one: actions are being done for the sake of others. These arguments are all about actions of a person. He

replies to these arguments through citing instances regarding on the arguments mentioned earlier.

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

- The three commonplace confusions are a). Selfishness with self-interests,b). Assumption that

every action is done either from self-interest and c). The common but false assumption that a concern for

ones own welfare is incompatible with others.

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachels accept this

argument?

- Therefore, the argument goes, there is no way to maintain the doctrine of ethical egoism as a

consistent view... Rachels says that we must put our minds in a certain kind of world for the others

wherein that world is a place for us to maximize our interests regarding of other peoples interests.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the

egoist reply?

- According to Rachels, we shouldnt hurt others because they will be hurt and we should help othersbecause they will benefiting on our help. Because an egoist does not care on others value, they will react

negative about it.

Discussion Questions

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

is his answer?

- Rachels answers the question Why be moral because he believes that the virtue of beneficence

does and indeed should occupy an important place in the moral institution of life.

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

people they dont know?

- I think yes, although people doesnt know the time when they are already showing their care to

others, still they do this practice coz it is an instinct for us, as humans.


6/23

6

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

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

- The view is moral.

Chapter 2

Religion, Morality and Conscience:John Arthur


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: Religion is necessary to morality, because without God there could be no right and wrong

Expected to Learn

To learn the ideas and concepts of John Arthur regarding his topics.

Review

The chapter is all about the discussion of John Arthur regarding the religion, morality and

conscience. Let us go to discussion of morality and religion different where in Morality and religion are

different on how the people use it in strengthening their bond to God and its gift to us such as

conscience. Religion is not that necessary for moral motivation because a decision on a given situation is

being used in doing the right thing or not. Religion is not necessary as a source of moral knowledge

because a person always follows his free will in deciding for something or personal motives rather than

consulting his/her inner faith on his belief in formulating decisions. He also discusses the divine

command theory were the Divine Command Theory means that God is connected on moral laws same

as the legislature. Therefore, if without God, there are no moral or rather morals laws imposed for us tofollow. This was rejected by Arthur because he believes that this theory because he believes that if we

do think our actions are moral, then it is approve or supported by God. So if God changes the rules

without knowing then the good will be evil and the evil will be good. He also tries to connect the

morality to religion where morality and religion is connected because morality or morals cannot be

shaped based on the teachings of the Religion believed by its followers.

Things I learned

I learned the ideas and opinion of John Arthur about the religion, Morality and conscience.

Review Questions:

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

- Morality and religion are different on how the people use it in strengthening their bond to

God and its gift to us such as conscience.


7/23

7

2. Why isnt religion necessary for moral motivation?

- Religion is not that necessary for moral motivation because a decision on a given situation

is being used in doing the right thing or not.

3. Why isnt religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?

- Religion is not necessary as a source of moral knowledge because a person always follows

his free will in deciding for something or personal motives rather than consulting his/her

inner faith on his belief in formulating decisions.

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

- Divine Command Theory means that God is connected on moral laws same as the

legislature. Therefore, if without God, there are no moral or rather morals laws imposed for

us to follow. Arthur rejected this theory because he believes that if we do think our actions

are moral, then it is approve or supported by God. So if God changes the rules without

knowing then the good will be evil and the evil will be good.

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

- Morality and religion is connected because morality or morals cannot be shaped based on

the teachings of the Religion believed by its followers. So, morality is void or weak if the

main foundation is gone or weak too.

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

- The interpretation of Arthur to Deweys statement is that morality is also inherently social

because people can understand other peoples languages, actions and decisions in a way itthey can know is it good or bad.


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

- Actually, Arthur did not refute the divine command theory rather he opposes the main

idea of it. It can be defended by discussing his point of views on why he does not accept the

fact of the divine command theory.

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhumananimals? (Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to it in footnote 6.)

- Obligation to animals is the same in respecting their way of living. If we are moral people,

then we must be observant or vigil enough that torturing or destroying a living thing is

against on the ethical or moral value taught by our respective religions.


8/23

8

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

education?

- A moral education is a better step in developing a persons mind and conscience in way a

certain action to avoid doing immoral actions. An ethic class is been classified as a part of

moral education, not a moral education itself. It will take countless of professionalism of a

teacher and time in discussing the lessons related to morality.

Chapter 3

Master- and Slave- Morality:Friedrich Nietzsche


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: Every elevation of the type of man has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and

so will always be a society believing in a long scale of graduations of ranks, differences of worthy

among human beings, and requiring slave in some form or another

Expected To Learn

To learn the point of view of Nietzsche regarding the Master and Slave Morality.

Review

According to Nietzsche, a good and healthy society is all about allowing their superior to

exercise their Will of Power, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior or in short,

there is submission to a higher command. He also discusses the view about the injury, violence an

exploitation were it avoids us to experience the sense of good conduct among individuals when thereare necessary conditions given. He also discusses the main concepts of Salve Morality and master

morality. The master morality is the value creator while slave morality shows the virtue of sympathy,

kindness and humility. Also Master morality is the attitude of good and evil which is equal to noble

and despicable while slave morality is the attitude that holds to the standard of that what is useful or

benefiting for the weak and the poor. In this chapter, Nietzsche discusses also the will of power,

according to him The Will of Power is not the strength alone rather it can be achieve in creative activity:

it is associated with self-sufficiency and self-confidence. When this will is frustrated, consolatory myths

appear in the shape of unhealthy ethical systems promoting virtues such as charity and humility, which

are in fact sublimations of resentment and envy.

Things I learned

I learned the point of views and objections of Friedrich Nietzche about his Master and Slave

Morality.


9/23

9

Review Questions

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

- According to Nietzsche, a good and healthy society can allow their superior to exercise

their Will of Power, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

2. What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence and exploitation?

- Nietzsches point of view on injury, violence and exploitation is, it avoids us to experience

the sense of good conduct among individuals when there are necessary conditions given.

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

- The master morality is the value creator while slave morality shows the virtue of

sympathy, kindness and humility. Also Master morality is the attitude of good and evil

which is equal to noble and despicable while slave morality is the attitude that holds to

the standard of that what is useful or benefiting for the weak and the poor.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

- The Will of Power is not the strength alone rather it can be achieve in creative activity: it is

associated with self-sufficiency and self-confidence. When this will is frustrated, consolatory

myths appear in the shape of unhealthy ethical systems promoting virtues such as charity

and humility, which are in fact sublimations of resentment and envy.


1. Some people view Nietzsches writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, somehave charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why

not?

- I think that Nietzsche is trying to explain some concepts regarding the use of Will to

Power in making a society good and healthy. So, the charges against Nietzsche are not well

justified because they look at it as a threat on their personal interests.

2. What does it mean to be a creator of values?

- Being the creator of values is a privilege knowing Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi and other

societal icons took years or hardships in convincing other people to do this and not to dothis so for me it will be a great honor to be one of the few that might change the world.


10/23

10

Chapter 4

Trying Out Ones New Sword:Mary Midgley

Library Reference:


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. To respect someone, we have to

know enough about him to make a favorable judgment, however general or tentative.

Expected to Learn

To understand what is the main point of a Trying out ones sword by Mary Midgley.

Review

This chapter merely focuses on certain traditions where Mar Midgley pointed out its meaning

and level of morality to other people. She defines the moral isolationism, which it means that, the belief

that no one can ever understand any culture except his or her own. Moreover, due to this lack of

understanding, no one is ever just in criticizing another culture. It only says that we have no right to

judge others beliefs knowing we had no a background on their customs. She sited an example regarding

his topic; it is all about a Japanese custom called Tsujigiri. Tsujigiri is the tradition, practiced by the

samurai warriors of Japan, called for testing out new swords on passing wayfarers or travelers. 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. But there a question being raised

but Midgley according on this tradition. She also came to a question that if there is a fault in moralisolationism, what it is. Here it is, as the moral isolationism prevents us in criticizing others customs that

might breach or destroy the value of morality, then it is wrong because it defies or contrast the moral

values we know. She had formulate a basis in criticizing others cultures that the only basis to criticize

other culture is to prove it that it destroys the general moral teachings seriously or else, we stop

criticizing others beliefs or traditions.

Things I learned

I learned the idea of Mary Midgley about her article of Trying Out Ones New Sword.

Review Questions

1. What is moral isolationism?

- Moral isolationism is the belief that no one can ever understand any culture except his or

her own. Moreover, due to this lack of understanding, no one is ever just in criticizing

another culture.


11/23

11

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

- Tsujigiri is the tradition, practiced by the samurai warriors of Japan, called for testing out

new swords on passing wayfarers or travelers. 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. The questions that Midgley

ask are, do other people with different custom questions our very own customs. Does the

isolating barrier between the two cultures block praise as well as blame? How they or we

judged each others customs.

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

- As the moral isolationism prevents us in criticizing others customs that might breach or

destroy the value of morality, then it is wrong because it defies or contrast the moral values

we know.

4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?

- The only basis to criticize other culture is to prove it that it destroys the general moral

teachings seriously or else, we stop criticizing others beliefs or traditions.


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

Nietzsche? Why or why not?

- It is not a fair assessment because Nietzsche has its own understanding and explanation

about certain ideas regarding morality.

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

Explain your answer.

- I agree with Midgley because as of now, different races around the globe criticize each

others traditions way of living or customs. Therefore, separation of cultures are real

knowing there are different sects of Religion and beliefs that tends to separate nations for

thousands of years.


12/23

12

Chapter 5

The Debate over Utilitarianism:James Rachels


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: There is a sense in which no moral philosopher can completely reject Utilitarianism.

Expected to Learn

To learn how James Rachels comes up a debate against the Utilitarianism and its purpose.

Review

Rachels had concluded the classical utilitarianism into three propositions. Here are the lists of

proposition: a.) actions are judged right or wrong soley in virtue of their consequences, b.) in assessing

consequences, the only thing that matters the amount of happiness or unhappiness that caused and c.)

in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness is to be counted as more

important than anyone else. He also explains the problem with hedonism, Hedonism is the belief of a

something that if it is good then it will be called, happiness but it misunderstands the meaning of

happiness because happiness does not circle only on things that are good rather it there are instances

that are bad that makes a person happy. Defenders of utilitarianism suggest that in order to over ride

Hedonism, we must utilize or maximize our resources and other good things in order for us to be happy.

There are also objections about justice, rights and promises were not imposed or observed all the time.

Rights are not valued especially to racisms on a community, promises are tend to be broken in promising

a fair judgment, and rights are valued. He also distinguish the rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism

were Rule Utilitarianism are actions conform in to the rules that will lead to greater good while Act

Utilitarianism states that the right action is one that will give happiness to a person.

Things I Learned

I learned James Rachels point about The debate over Utilitarianism.

Review Questions

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

they?

Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences

In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or

unhappiness that caused.

In calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused , no ones happiness is to

be counted as more important than anyone else.


13/23

13

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

problem?

- Hedonism is the belief of a something that if it is good then it will be called, happiness but

it misunderstands the meaning of happiness because happiness does not circle only on

things that are good rather it there are instances that are bad that makes a person happy.

Defenders of utilitarianism suggest that in order to over ride Hedonism, we must utilize or

maximize our resources and other good things in order for us to be happy.

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

- The objection for justice is a fair judgment, is not imposed or observed all the time. Rights

are not valued especially to racisms on a community, promises are tend to be broken in

promising a fair judgment, and rights are valued.

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

objections?

- Rule Utilitarianism are actions conform in to the rules that will lead to greater good while

Act Utilitarianism states that the right action is one that will give happiness to a person.

They insist that achieving happiness can be done through doing the right action on others or

ourselves.

5. What is the third line of defense?

- The third line of defense is Act-Utilitarianism.


1. Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with

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

- No, because morality supports our main entity as human being that knows how to be

moral for ourselves and to others.

2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered?

What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

- The one that must be considered first, is the one that lacks on the knowledge of morality

because it will help him/her to decide things based on his/her conscience.


14/23

14

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

agree?

- Yes.

Chapter 6

The Categorical Imperative:Immanuel Kant


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a

universal law

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal

law

Expected to learn

To Learn the meaning and discussions of Immanuel Kant on his Categorical Imperative.

Review

Kant explained the meaning of good will were when we act, whether or not we achieve what we

intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend

upon their outcome. What we can control, however, is the will behind the action. He had distinguished

the hypothetical and categorical imperatives were Hypothetical imperatives are situation that a person

doesnt know until he/she face the situation while categorical imperatives is the opposite ofhypothetical, the person knows the situation right before he/she face it. he also stated the first

formulation of categorical imperative that Act only on that maxim through which you can act the same

time wills that should become a universal law. He discusses and relates this first formulation through

enumerating few duties following customary divisions towards others into perfect ad imperfect duties.

He also stated the second version of categorical imperative where the end justifies the mean because

we know that the mean/s have constraints but if your will/ end is motivated in doing something, it will

help to overcome or the means may might happen.

Things I learned

I learn the concepts an ideas of Immanuel Kant regarding the Categorical imperative.


15/23

15

Review Questions

1. Explain Kants account of the good will.

- When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond

our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome. What we

can control, however, is the will behind the action.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

- Hypothetical imperatives are situation that a person doesnt know until he/she face the

situation while categorical imperatives is the opposite of hypothetical, the person knows the

situation right before he/she face it.

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

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

- Act only on that maxim through which you can act the same time wills that should

become a universal law. Kant uses this rule through enumerating few duties following

customary divisions towards others into perfect ad imperfect duties.

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

and explain it.

- The second version is only that the end justifies the mean because we know that the

mean/s have constraints but if your will/ end is motivated in doing something, it will help to

overcome or the means may might happen.


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

or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

- I think that the imperatives are one basic rule due to it coincides with the concept of good

will.

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 counterexample.

- I think the answer is no because although on our daily lives we perform certain task whichis not our duty to do so, and we think it is good and not harmful to others, the action is

moral. For example, although going to church on Sundays is in the ten commandments, a

person have decided that he will take a rest first because of his 1 week sleepless nights and

to think that Sunday is his rest day. Do you think that he become immoral? I dont think it

will be the case.


16/23

16

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

can be used to justify no moral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

- Yes.

Chapter 7

The Nature of Value and Rights:Joel Feinberg


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote:Even if there are conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights diffidently, there is

no doubt that their characteristic use and that for which they are distinctively well suited, is to be

claimed, demanded, affirmed, and insisted uponHaving rights, of course, makes claiming possible; but

it is claiming that gives rights their special moral significance.

Expected to Learn

To learn the nature of value and rights of Joel Feinberg.

Review

Joel Feinberg has cited an example where he asks his readers if they know the Nowheresville.

Nowheresville is like our world but, this kind of world does not value the rights of each living creatures

in its place. We all know that once a child is been formed in the womb of her motherit is now bounded

by the rights established by God and the community to live a normal life. He also explains the doctrine

of logical correlativity of rights and duties. The doctrine says that all duties entail other persons rights

and all rights entail other peoples duties. Therefore, in other words, that rights and duties coexists.Feinbergs point of view is being separated regarding about duties and rights. He also explains the

concept of personal desert. The personal desert means that a good response to another persons action

will create a connection between the two parties whereas the person whom will receive the response

deserves it or has a right on it. It may only work to Nowheresville if the people will learn to notice

another persons act of goodness in him or to others. The sovereign right-monopoly is the It means that

appreciating ones good or punishing ones mistake would result to a reward or punishment in which no

complaint from the subordinate will be heard. He also discusses the claim rights where it is a right,

which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder.

Things That I have learned

I learned the explanations and opinion of Joel Feinberg regarding the nature of Human Rights.


17/23

17

Review Questions:

1. Describe Nowheresville. How is the world different from our world?- Nowheresville is like our world but, there are no rights available for each one of us unlike

in our world once a baby is formed right after the conception, he/ she has now the right to

live.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties? What is Feinbergs positionon this doctrine?

- The doctrine says that all duties entail other persons rights and all rights entails other

peoples duties. Therefore, in other words, that rights and duties coexists. Feinbergs point

of view is being separated regarding about duties and rights.

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

- Feinberg explains that the concept of personal desert is that a good response to another

persons action will create a connection between the two parties whereas the person whom

will receive the response deserves it or has a right on it. Personal desert would work if

Nowheresville people will learn to notice another persons act of goodness in himself or to

others.

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

- It means that appreciating ones good or punishing ones mistake would result to a

reward or punishment in which no complaint from the subordinate will be heard. This wouldwork in valuing the rights of a person and in executing proper judgments on their actions.

5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?- A claim rightis a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties

regarding the right-holder. It is important to him because other people must protect our

rights from negligence and bad motives.

Discussion Questions:

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?- Yes, because base from his examples he instigates that a right is the basis in deciding,

performing obligations and judging.

2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?- The obligation of the debtor to the creditor to meet certain duties.


18/23

18

Chapter 8

Taking Rights Seriously:Ronald Dworkin


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote:The institution of Rights is therefore crucial, because it represents the majoritys promise to the

minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected.

Expected to learn

To learn why rights must be taken seriously by Ronald Dworkin.

Review

Dworkin discusses the rights in a strong sense were he believes that if a people have the right to

do something, then it is wrong to interfere with it. it is protected by the US Constitution where human

rights are under the First Amendment, and in due process, equal protection and similar clauses. He also

distinguishes the legal and moral rights where a legal right is the right of a citizen protected by a

constitution while a moral right is right of a person according to his morality and conscience here are

some of my examples regarding this topic: The example of legal rights that are not moral rights is,

Divorces and annulments are legal in some countries but it is immoral in terms of commitment to

another party. An example of moral rights, which is not a legal right, is if you are in a situation of life and

death situation against a killer, you have the moral right to decapitate or kill the person but in terms of

the law, it is not appropriate to kill. There are two models of how government may define the rights of

its citizen here are two models: The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the

individual and the demands of society while the second one is that the government inflates a right (by

defining it more broadly that justice requires) then it cheats society of some general benefit, like safestreets, that there is no reason it should not have. But Dworking likes the second one because Dworkin

likes the second model because the first one is false in a sense that the right is important but

unfortunately not, while the second one embraces the rights of the society.

Things I learned

I learned the points and ideas of Ronald Dworkin about how human rights taken seriously.

Review Questions

1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense areprotected by the U.S. A Constitution?

- On Dworkins view, if a people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to

interfere with it. The US constitution protects the rights of a human under the First

Amendment, and in due process, equal protection and similar clauses.


19/23

19

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

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

- A legal right is the right of a citizen protected by a constitution while a moral right is right

of a person according to his morality and conscience. The example of legal rights that are

not moral rights is, Divorces and annulments are legal in some countries but it is immoral in

terms of commitment to another party. An example of moral rights, which is not a legal

right, is if you are in a situation of life and death situation against a killer, you have the

moral right to decapitate or kill the person but in terms of the law, it is not appropriate to

kill.

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

does Dworkin find more attractive?

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

demands of society while the second one is that the government inflates a right (by defining

it more broadly that justice requires) then it cheats society of some general benefit, like safe

streets, that there is no reason it should not have. Dworkin likes the second model becausethe first one is false in a sense that the right is important but unfortunately not, while the

second one embraces the rights of the society.

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

- The act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities.


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

- Yes because it his right to act upon his will and conscience knowing there will be risks and

consequences.

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mills utilitarianism (See footnote about

institutional utilitarianism).

- Yes.

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

- Maybe if he would act on his decisions based on his point of view.


20/23

20

Chapter 9

A Theory of Justice:John Rawls


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote:Justice as Fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear that the contract idea can be

extended to a choice of more or less an entire ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for

all the virtues and not only for justice.

Expected to learn

My learning expectation from this article is to know the theories of justice because I believe that

in order for a certain thing or even rule to come up, intelligent people formulates or even discuss these

topics for only to prove that the theory is possible or an axiom.

Review

Rawlss theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first one is: it involves basic

liberties equally, and the last principle is the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. These are

the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position. The person

that will accept this is he/she must be in a veil of ignorance hiding from some particular facts about

themselves. As we go deeper on the theory of justice by Rawls is quite difficult to understand but I think

that he only expounds that justice is divided into two perspectives: the internal and external perspective

of justice. The first principle only states that in order to do or formulate a certain judgment, it must be

credible and fair enough to the parties involved before it will be released and implemented. It must

withstand criticisms and objections through its strong substantiality in order to defy or counter attack an

objection coming from the external environment regarding on the established judgment. The second

principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. It only

means that social relationship to the economic equalities will be only good as the two sector jive or I

say, interact smoothly with each other. It also implies that the two have agreed upon the stipulations or

laws that are imposed by the General ruling system or simply the Law itself. Cooperation is a way

between the two sector to eliminate these inequalities or differences that might took place in the

community.

Things I learned

I learned the idea of John Rawls regarding the Justice on how it began and how it relates to

every persons lives.

Review Questions

1. Carefully explain Rawls conception of the original position.Rawlss theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first one is: it involves basic

liberties equally, and the last principle is the arrangement of social and economic inequalities.


21/23

21

These are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original

position.

2. State and explain Rawls first principle of justice.The first principle only states that in order to do or formulate a certain judgment, it mustbe credible and fair enough to the parties involved before it will be released and

implemented. It must withstand criticisms and objections through its strong substantiality in

order to defy or counter attack an objection coming from the external environment regarding

on the established judgment.

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

The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and

economic inequalities. It only means that social relationship to the economic equalities will

be only good as the two sector jive or I say, interact smoothly with each other. The second

principle is the principle that cannot be sacrificed.


1. On the first principle, each has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as thisdoes not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to do? Does it

mean, for example, that people have a right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they

dont interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict

anyones freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in privacy of their homes?

- Although there are laws that are sometimes lacks the proper explanation wherein itgives the curious person or reader to take the exceptions of the rule literally, still there

are exceptions that are the ones that serves as the balance such as morality based

exceptions and societal related exceptions.

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon differentprinciples than those given by Rawls? For example, why wouldnt they agree to an equal

distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldnt

they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isnt socialism just as rational as capitalism?

- I believe these people that favors these principles is that they will feel that all of thepeople are equal in the eyes of the law or in other words, equality in rights are the best

choice for the majority.


22/23

22

Chapter 10

Happiness and Virtue:Aristotle


White/dp/0495553204/

Quote:We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and the sea, for even with moderate

advantages one can act virtuously.

Expected to learn

My learning expectation from this article is to know happiness and virtue by Aristotle, a scientist

as well as a philosopher.

Review

What is Happiness? For Aristotle happiness is a virtuously activity of the soul. It is

something that you can gain through contemplating. Happiness is related with virtue

because according to Aristotle, virtue is the state of a character which concerned with the

mean or what we commonly known as middle. We need to be on the mean because like

what the old saying goes, too much and too less is something that be consider as dreadful.

So Aristotle also says that, having something which is excessive or deficient can destroy our

own happiness. Moderate the Greed said by Jun Lozada or we must keep the balance in

order to survive or maintain our way of living/s. if there is happiness, there will be pleasure.

Pleasure is a state of happiness but in a lower state because it is considered a temporary

happiness. It can be experienced by a human being when he or she eats his/her favorite

food or finds a comfort with his partner. It is not like with the happiness explained by

Aristotle wherein the happiness is somewhat long term in nature. Aristotle also states that

Moral virtue is what makes or forms the mean. Moral virtue is something that a product of

training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Aristotle

had said that moral virtue is like a good work of art, excessiveness and deficiency on it can

destroy its beauty but the mean can preserve it. In other words, moral virtue should be felt

on the right time, with the right objects and the right people. Moral Virtue is the mean that

makes things in proper place.

Things I learned

I learned the idea of Aristotle regarding on his work of the Happiness and Virtue.


23/23

23

Review Questions

1. What is Happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it relatedto pleasure?

For Aristotle happiness is a virtuously activity of the soul. It issomething that you can gain through contemplating. Happiness isrelated with virtue because according to Aristotle, virtue is the state ofa character which concerned with the mean or what we commonly

known as middle. if there is happiness, there will be pleasure. Pleasureis a state of happiness but in a lower state because it is considered atemporary happiness. It can be experienced by a human being whenhe or she eats his/her favorite food or finds a comfort with his partner.

2. How does explain moral virtues? Give some examples. Moral virtue is something that a product of training and habits, it is

also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency.

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

Everyone has the right to be happy in all kinds of form.Discussion Questions

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

If there is wrong in having a pleasure with something then, all of the sudden thepeople will be hot headed or unsatisfied with their lives.

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

I think he is joking while he states this or he is out of his mind because I believe,ordinary people can live a happy and normal life as long as he/she satisfies him

or herself.

Documents

Microsoft Word - CMP