Book Review of Contemporary Moral Problems

DE LA SALLE – COLLEGE OF SAINT BENILDE
Book Review of
Contemporary Moral
Problems
IT Ethics
Yumiko Manongdo
2/27/2009
This book review was made for the partial fulfillment of the requirement in the IT Ethics subject in our
course Information Systems.
Name of the Book: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS (SEVENTH EDITION) By: James E. White
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines
License.
Copyright Receipts
Use Case Diagram of Existing System
Use Case Narrative of Existing System
Activity Diagram of Existing System
Use Case Diagram of Proposed System
Page | 2
Egoism and Moral Scepticism
James Rachel
Quote
“No one, is it commonly believed, would have such iron strength of mind as to
stand fast in doing right or keep his hands off other men’s goods, when he could
go to the market-place and fearlessly help himself to anything he wanted…”
Learning Expectation
 Differentiate and learn about psychological and ethical egoism

 Understand the three commonplace confusions
Review
James Rachels’ Egoism and Moral Skepticism discusses and examines the psychological and
ethical egoism. She concludes that both theories are false and confused. Psychological egoism states
that all actions of men are self-interested, meaning all of his actions are focused on himself and for his
benefit only. While the Ethical egoism states that all actions SHOULD be self-interested, that men have
no obligation to do other things except only their own interests. I do think Rachels is right in criticizing
and contradicting this two moral theories because in my opinion these should not be called MORAL
theories because these two states that we humans are selfish in nature that we only act because of our
interests and if we are to act on the interest of others, it should be that it will have a benefit on us like
satisfaction, but is still considered being selfish.
One thing that caught my attention is what Rachels said in the last paragraph of the reading, “…
we may often be able to make accurate moral judgments, and know what we ought to do, but not do it.
For these ills, philosophy alone is not the cure.” I do like Rachels writing because it really makes a lot of
sense to me and it is comprehensible than other theories. He discusses things in a logical order which
makes it easy to understand and follow. And another thing that I like about this reading is the example,
the Legend of Gyges, which is an interesting story which has challenging moral questions. In all these
readings, Rachels’ was what I understood the most and what I could relate to.
Page | 3
Learning
One thing that really sticks to my mind is the egoists that try to create a world that would
maximize his own interests by advocating altruistic principles. This applies to some people in the
government which seems to be caring, hardworking, sympathetic, etc. they do advocate good things like
a campaign against corruption but they themselves are corrupt. This idea is clever but again is evil; it
would be bad if a person who is intelligent and good in deceiving would apply egoism in his life. What
I’ve learned from this is ethical egoism could be consistent given that you consider the things that a
person is doing as a means in achieving the end.
Integrative Questions
1. What do you think would be the reason to continue being moral if it is not on your advantage to
do so?
2. Do you believe that man is selfish in all the things that he does? Why or why not?
3. Is the world of the egoist, where his interests are maximized, could exist in our world? Why or
why not?
4. Do you agree with Rachels that ethical egoism is not inconsistent? Explain.
5. On the last part of the reading, Rachel states that ““… we may often be able to make accurate
moral judgments, and know what we ought to do, but not do it. For these ills, philosophy alone
is not the cure.”, what do you think would the cure be?
Review Questions
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who was said to have found a magic ring in a fissure
opened by an earthquake and the wearer of the ring would make its wearer invisible and thus
could make him go anywhere and do anything undetected. Gyges who found the ring, used it to
gain entry to the Royal Palace and seduced the Queen and murdered the King and seized the
throne.
Glaucon asks if there are two such rings, one given to a man of virtue and one given to a rogue.
It is obvious that the rogue will use the ring to increase his wealth and power, and do anything
he pleases without any fear of punishment. But the question is what does the virtuous man will
do? Glaucon suggest that the virtuous man will behave just as like the rogue because what
reason would the man have to continue being “moral” if it is clearly not to his own advantage to
do so?
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
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. While Ethical egoism is a normative
view about how men ought to act.
Page | 4
3. Rachels discusses to arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how
does he reply to them?
The first argument for psychological egoism is: “if we describe one person’s action 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 is merely doing what he most wants to
do. If Smith stays behind to help his friend, that only shows that he wanted to help his friend
more than he wanted to go to the country. And why should he be praised for his ‘unselfishness’
when he is doing what he most wants to do? So, since Smith is only doing what he most wants
to do, he cannot be said to be acting unselfishly”
Rachels stated that this argument is so bad that it would not deserve to be taken seriously.
Smith is not acting selfishly because if he wants to do something that will help his friend and
forgoing his own enjoyment, which is what is making him unselfish. It does not necessarily
follow that if you are acting on your wants, you are acting selfishly; it depends on what is it that
you want. Selfishness is if you only want your own good and does not care anything about
others.
The second argument is “Since the so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-
satisfaction in the agent, and 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. Therefore the action is ‘unselfish’ only at a
superficial level of analysis. Smith will feel much better with himself for having stayed to help his
friend – if he had gone to the country, he would have felt terrible about it – and that is the real
point of the action.”
Rachels also says that this argument suffers from defects similar to the first one. He states that
why should we think that someone who merely derives satisfaction from helping others makes
him selfish? And isn’t it that an unselfish man is the one who derives satisfaction from helping
others, and the selfish one does not?
4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?
First is the confusion of selfishness with self-interest. Selfish behaviour is behaviour that ignores
the interest of others, in circumstances in which their interests ought not to be ignored. While
self-interest is taking care of yourself properly without sacrificing the interests of others, an
example of which would be brushing your teeth, obeying the law, etc.
Second is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-
regarding motives. The egoist concludes that genuine altruism does not exist and all actions
must be done from self-interest.
Page | 5
Third 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. Thus, since it is obvious that everyone (or
very nearly everyone) does desire his own well-being, it might be thought that no one can really
be concerned with others.
5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this argument?
“Ethical egoism is at the bottom inconsistent because it cannot be universalized”. Rachels does
not accept this argument because he states that there is a way where ethical egoism could be
maintained consistently. He says that if someone would adopt this idealism, that person would
want other people to be altruists, and would advocate altruistic principles. This would not be
inconsistent, according to Rachels, because it would be perfectly consistent with the person’s
goal of creating a world in which his own interests are maximized. This would mean that the
person would be deceitful and would pretend to accept the altruistic principles. And to quote
Rachels, “He advocates one thing, but does another. Surely that’s inconsistent. But it is not; for
what he advocates and what he does are both calculated as means to an end; and as such, he is
dong what is rationally required in each case.”
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can
the egoist reply?
Rachel’s answer to these questions are, we should not hurt other people because other people
would be hurt, and we should help others because others would be benefited. This point is that
the welfare of human beings is something that most of us value for its own sake, and not merely
for the sake of something else. The egoist would surely be unhappy, he will protest that we may
accept this as a reason, but he does not.
Discussion Questions
1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, “Why be moral” If so, what exactly is his
answer?
Being moral is to respect the rights and interest of others, and if other people are also moral,
then living in that society could you live a happy and secure life. And to quote Rachels, “we may
often be able to make accurate moral judgments, and know what we ought to do, but not do it.
For these ills, philosophy alone is not the cure.”
Page | 6
2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachel claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even
people they don’t know?
Genuine egoists are rare because they don’t really care about others, even their family
members. I agree with Rachels that a man without sympathy could hardly be called a man at all.
I also believe that all people are born naturally good, which means that they do care about
others even if they don’t know them. Humans are rational beings, who could distinguish good
from evil not like animals. I don’t think that there would be a sane person who would ignore a
person who is in need or in danger.
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. Is such a view immoral or not?
In my opinion, this view is immoral because first of all, you should value yourself and take care
of it because it does always mean that if you have done good things to other people, they would
return the favor to you. I agree with the saying “you should love yourself before you love
others”. One should act for his own self-interest given that the interests of others are not
suppressed by it.
Page | 7
Religion, Morality and Conscience
John Arthur
Quote
“… gods love holiness because it is holy: and it is not holy because they love it”
 Learn the real definition of morality and how does it affect our beliefs
 The importance of morality in respect to religion and vice-versa.
Review
John Arthur discusses morality and rejects the notion and teaching that morality depends on
religion. This reading could be offending to some religious people because it argues with the divine
command theory which states that without God, there would be no morality. I am interested in these
kinds of things because they bring about controversies and things that are not normally discussed in
school or in public. Arthur says that it seems like God discovered morality because morality could exist
and is not dependent on religion. This issue was even discussed in earlier times when Socrates asked
Euthyphro, what is it that makes holiness a virtue? And Euthyphro said that it is just whatever all the
gods love which Socrates contradicts and says that holiness is not what is pleasing to the gods, and what
is pleasing to the gods is not holy as you say.
Arthur discussed the topic sufficiently and explained it very clearly with some interesting
examples like that of Euthyphro and Socrates. But Arthur did not really refute the divine command
theory; he just stated that morality will still be under God’s control since God made our environment.
But his main point in this reading is that morality is social because it cannot exist without others and
emphasized Dewey’s point that moral education should not only be possible but, essential. Overall,
Arthur did not really condemn religion in this reading, he is just stating the difference between them and
their correct relationship in which popular moral beliefs mixes it up.
Learning
I think the most important thing that I’ve learned from this reading is that morality is Social,
meaning it depends on our interactions with others, on how we occupy the position of others. As Arthur
said, morality cannot exist without others. I’ve only come across this kind of idea about morality in this
reading.
Page | 8
1. Do you agree with Arthur that morality is independent of religion and is it is social?
2. Is it true that people do not think or religion doesn’t even cross their minds when making a
decision?
3. Do you think religion is important if you are morally educated?
4. What do you think would happen if religion is considered as the moral basis?
5. What is your reaction regarding Arthur’s statement that God discovers morality rather than
inventing it?
Review Questions
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
Morality is to evaluate the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions when we
perform them, while Religion is the 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.
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Religion isn’t necessary for moral motivation because religious motives are far from the only
ones people have. The decision to do the right thing depends on many reasons, and many
people don’t give much thought to religion when making a moral decision
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
Religion isn’t necessary as a source of moral knowledge because morality exists even without
religion and moral knowledge could be achieved through other things not only through the
teachings of a religion
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
Divine command theory states that religion is necessary for morality because without Go there
could be no right or wrong, God, in other words, provides the foundation or bedrock on which
morality is grounded. Arthur rejects this theory because he believes that morality is not
invented by God, rather God discovers it. He also states that morality depends in part on how
we reason, what we desire and need, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves, then
morality will still be under God’s control since God could have constructed us or our
environment very differently
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
According to Arthur, religion has historical influence in the development of morality as well on
politics and law, and morality has also influenced religion. Morality could also influence how
people interpret the Bible for example.
Page | 9
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
Arthur has three reasons on why morality is social, first, is the existence of morality assumes
that we possess a socially acquired language within which we think about our choices and which
alternatives we ought to follow. Second, morality is social in that it governs relationships among
people, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Third, morality is social in the
sense that we are, in fact, subject to criticism by others for our actions. And Dewey’s reason
which is we reject our private, subjective perspective of others, envisioning how they might
respond to various choices we make. Morality cannot exist without the broader, social
perspective introduced by others, and this social nature ties it, in that way, with education and
with public discussion, both actual and imagined.
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
Arthur has refuted the divine command theory because he stated that to adopt the divine
command theory therefore commits its advocate to the seemingly absurd position that even the
greatest atrocities might be not only acceptable but morally required if God were to command
them.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman
animals?
Our obligations to nonhuman animals rests on sympathy and compassion, we should not harm
animals not because other people would disapprove of it or the animal itself would disapprove,
but we should not hurt them because they would be hurt. We should know better because we
are humans, we are able to distinguish the right from wrong and that’s what makes us different
from any other animals.
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as a moral
education?
Dewey defines moral education as training and moral thinking of putting ourselves onto other
people’s position, listening to others, reading what about others think and do, and reflecting
within ourselves about our actions and whether we could defend them to others. A college
ethics class could be counted as a moral education because we could read and study about
moral theories which are about what other people think and their reactions to the existing
theories.
Page | 10
Master– and Slave-Morality
Friedrich Nietzsche
Quote
“The noble type of man separates himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud
disposition displays itself: he despises them.”
1. How a society could function if it follows the Master- and Slave-Morality.
2. What is the moral implication of this theory?
3. How does the Master- and Slave-Morality works.
Review
Friedrich Nietzsche’s Master- and Slave-Morality states that a healthy society should allow the
“superior beings” to rule and to exploit the inferior. He describes the “superior beings” as the one who
follows the “master-morality” which emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom. And an inferior
being follows the “slave-morality” which calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. First of all, I
would say that Nietzsche’s concept of freedom is mislead because the right meaning of freedom is doing
what is right without violating the freedom of other people. I think Nietzsche’s understanding of
freedom is the same as the common belief of people that it is doing what you want without control and
restrictions which isn’t really right.
I do not like Nietzsche’s idea at all, for me it really violates morality in every way. And it seems
that his works, like the Will to Power inspired Adolf Hitler to form Nazism. As I’ve understood, the Will
to Power states that you should take advantage of your life to gain as much power as you can, and being
alive gives you that opportunity. I think that this inspired Adolf Hitler to be the leader of the Nazis; he
took advantage of the situation when Germany was just arising from the Great Depression. Nietzsche’s
idea of the “superior beings” was the Aryans that the Nazis considered to be former gods that are lost,
and are pure bloods that are higher than any other race. And the Jews to be the “slaves” that are to be
exploited by them.
Page | 11
Learning
I learned that in Master- and Slave-Morality, what are good to them are the noble ones and the
bad is the despicable ones, according to Nietzsche, they are the cowards, the timid, the insignificant and
those thinking merely of narrow utility, also the distrusted.
1. Do you think Nietzsche’s idea is good or bad?
2. Is Master- and Slave-Morality one of the causes of the rise of the Feminism theory?
3. If the inferior ones are the weak, submissive, with sympathy and love, isn’t this theory pertaining to
females?
4. Is it morally right for the persons who follow the “master-morality” to exploit others who follow the
“slave-morality”?
5. Why do you think Nietzsche values the noble type of man and even calls him a “creator of values”?
Review Questions
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
A good and healthy society according to Nietzsche is that it should not regard itself as a function
either of the kingship or the commonwealth but the significance and highest justification
thereof – that it should therefore accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of
individuals, who, for its sake, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to salves and
instruments. It fundamental belief must be precisely that society is not allowed to exist for its
own sake, but only as a foundation and scaffolding, by means of which a select class of beings
may be able to elevate themselves to their higher duties, and in general to a higher existence.
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation is to refrain from it; it would be a will to the
denial to life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or
imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic
function.
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality
Master-morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom while salve-morality is

weakness, submission, sympathy and love
Page | 12
4. Explain the Will to Power
The Will to Power is life. It will endeavor to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire
ascendancy.
Discussion Question
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?
In my opinion, Nietzsche’s writings could be harmful and dangerous if a person would make it as
his ideology and would apply it to his life. Like in ancient Greece, their republic was tranquil and
successful because of the presence of slaves. I do think that Nietzsche’s writing somehow
inspired Nazism because of the master and slave morality in which the Aryans are the superior
race and others are impure and inferior. And as Nietzsche’s says, to live is a Will to Power and
the creator of values, which Hitler applied to himself.
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
A creator of values is a noble type of man that regards himself as a determiner of values; he
does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment; he knows that it is he himself only
who confers honors on things; he honors whatever he recognizes in himself; such morality is
self-glorification.
Page | 13
Trying Out One’s New Sword
Mary Midgley
Quote
“Morally as well as physically, there is only one world, and we all have to live in it.”
1. Understand the concept of moral isolationism
2. Why is it considered as a doctrine of immoralism
Review
Mary Midgley’s reading, Trying Out One’s New Sword, is titled as such because it was based
from the classical Japanese tradition of ‘tsujigiri’ which means “to try out one’s new sword on a chance
wayfarer”. In this article, Midgley discusses and attacks moral isolationism which is the anthropologists’
view that a culture could not be judged if you do not understand it.
Midgley merely states that moral isolationism is unreal because even the most remote tribe’s
culture is formed out of many streams. We could be able to relate to these cultures in a way or the
other because we too have our own culture. The anthropologists’ basis for the moral isolationism is the
isolated tribes which they chose to study and observe.
What I like about Midgley’s attack is that she really thinks that there should not be anything that
could not be morally criticized because this would mean that moral reasoning is ignored and that is what
immoralism is all about. She even categorized Nietzsche as one of the immoralists and compared him to
smugglers in how immoralists put moralizing out of business. I think that other cultures should be
studied beforehand when it is criticized because this would lead to misconceptions and wrong
prejudices. And as a moral practice, we should be putting ourselves onto others’ shoes before we could
even judge them. Which could mean that the best way to judge a culture is when you are part of that
culture itself because there are certain things that could not be understood and appreciated by others?
Learning
I learned the term immoralism which is according to Midgley is a special sect of moralists that
put moralizing out of business. But I find this definition to be funny because how moralists could be
putting moralism out of business; I think they should be called immoralists. Another thing that I learned
is the meaning of moral isolationism, I think this theory is somewhat right, but should be modified if it
Page | 14
were to be accepted. I agree that you cannot judge a thing you don’t know because you don’t have any
basis for criticism.
Review Questions
1. What is “moral isolationism”?
Moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures
that we do not understand.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
Tsujigiri is a Japanese customs wherein a samurai sword had to be tried out because if it was to
work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the
opposite flank. Otherwise, the warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honor, offend his
ancestors, and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed, and wayfarers had to be
expended. Any wayfarer would do – provided, of course, that he was no another Samurai.
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley
According to Midgley, moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it

forbids any moral reasoning. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are separate and
unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of many influences. Moral isolationism
forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that we don’t
understand them
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
Moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Essentially, this is the
program of immoralism, and it carries a distressing logical difficulty. The power of moral
judgment is a necessity. When we judge something to be bad or good, better or worse than
something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid.
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of
Nietzsche? Why or why not?
I think it is a fair and accurate assessment of Nietzsche because as what morality is about, is to
care about the interest of others when you ought to and not to make your self-interest on top of
others and make yourself king-like at the expense of others. Nietzsche’s theory inspires
discrimination and selfishness which is really immoral.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal?
Explain your answer.
Page | 15
I believe Midgley’s claim that separate and unmixed cultures is unreal because as Midgley
stated, all cultures are formed out of many streams. Wherever you go, cultures always have
similarities because it is also made by humans.
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill
Quote
“A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable
probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points,
than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really
wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence”
 To learn what is Utilitarianism
 And how was it justified
Review
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism portrays how some of us act in our world today. With
considering happiness as good and pain as bad, people tend to act on what makes them happy
regardless if it is morally wrong. It is somehow like the democratic kind of government which considers
the decision of the majority in electing a president; it is much like Utilitarianism because it chooses what
causes the greater happiness which in this case is in electing a president. But what makes me question
Utilitarianism is what it states that happiness is the absence of pain, I think this is not true in most
situations because imagine a day wherein you are not doing something, which leaves you to become
bored, is boredom considered as being happy or being in pain? In my opinion it is neither because there
are some situations wherein a person is neither happy nor in pain. Although this theory of Mill is a nice
thing to have as a moral standard in our world, imagine considering the happiness of the majority which
happens to include you, I think it is a pleasant position to be in, but still there are people who have their
interests negated from the majority, we still have to consider them and the biggest flaw of this theory is
not everything that makes you happy is good and not all pain is bad.
In reading Mill’s work, it is also hard to understand if you haven’t read the other theories first. I
suggest that readers should first read Utilitarianism as to get its basic idea and then read the other
theories and to read Utilitarianism again to better have a grasp of the concept. This is what I’ve done
because I don’t really understand the whole concept of Utilitarianism the first time I’ve read it.
Page | 16
Learning
I’ve learned what does Utilitarianism means and how was it defended by Mill in a series of
examples.
1. Do you think that Utilitarianism is manifested in our daily actions?
2. Do you agree with the concept of Utilitarianism?
3. Isn’t it that some person derives pleasure from pain? Do you think that this contradicts the
theory of Utilitarianism?
4. Is it really right to choose the happiness of the majority over the happiness of one person?
5. In your opinion, is happiness really the absence of pain? Then how about doing nothing, is it
considered happiness or pain?
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.
The principle of utility states that “actions that are right in proportion as they tend to produce
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. This principle means that
an action that would produce greater happiness than unhappiness is the right thing to do, even
if it is morally wrong, and that an action that would cause greater unhappiness compared to
happiness is wrong. We could apply this principle in justifying actions that are wrong such as
lying and stealing. In lying, it could be considered good when for example a person lies to
someone for the purpose of going on a vacation with his friends, this action would be
considered the right thing to do because it would result in greater happiness than the
unhappiness that the action brought about to the other person who is being lied to. In stealing,
one good example is Robin Hood, he steals from the rich to give to the poor, and this could be
justified as right because what he stole would give happiness to a lot of poor people and
unhappiness to the one who he stole from.
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
Mill objects that Epicureanism is derived from utilitarianism because if the source of pleasure of
a swine is the same with human beings, then human beings are degraded because of the
comparison of what satisfies them. Human beings have elevated faculties than animals, which
mean that what is good enough for the beasts should not be satisfying to human beings.
3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
The higher pleasure is one from the two pleasures which was preferred by most people who
experienced both pleasures, while the lower pleasure is the one which was not preferred. This
preference is based on the quality of the pleasure and not on the quantity.
Page | 17
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
According to Mill, all person’s happiness must be considered, and not only of an individual.
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility.
Mill states that each person desires his own happiness, in the principle of Utility, happiness is
considered good that each person’s happiness is a good to himself, and that the general
happiness is good to the majority of all persons.
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
In my opinion, happiness is not just pleasure and the absence of pain, happiness for me is being
content with what you have and what you are as a person. There are such scenarios that a
person is happy even at the presence of pain, so I don’t agree with the statement above.
2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What
about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
I think that the higher pleasures are not better than the lower ones because pleasure depends
on what a person consider as pleasurable. For example, a person considers foot-massage
pleasurable than swimming in a beach, then that is the higher pleasure for that person. This
could differ from one person to another depending on their preference, and I think that there
are persons who rates two pleasures equally.
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?
I think what Mill said is true because utilitarianism is concerned about the happiness of the
majority. The concept that a person would prefer to be happy constitutes to this statement, the
person would do things that would make others happy so that others would do things to him
that would make him happy too.
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?
I think that Mill’s proof of utility is defective because he states that happiness is the one that is
desired by people, not the means. In my opinion, people does things because of some reason
but not because it would bring them happiness. For example, a person scratched his head, the
reason why he scratched his head is to relieve his uneasiness, and he does not scratch his head
to become happy, he scratched his head to relieve the discomfort. I think that it happiness is a
by-product of doing something that a person likes, not as an end or a reason for doing it.
Page | 18
The Debate over Utilitarianism
James Rachels
Quote
“Thus in some instances we will not treat everyone alike, because people are not
just members of an undifferentiated crowd. Instead, they are individuals who, by
their own choices, show themselves to deserve different kinds of responses…”
1. Know what the objections of Rachels on utilitarianism are
2. And what are the replies given by the defenders of utilitarianism
Review
This reading is again from James Rachel, he summed up utilitarianism in three propositions: first
is that, it is the consequence that determines the judgment of the action. Second is the amount of
happiness and unhappiness is the basis in assessing consequences. And third is everyone’s happiness is
equally important. Rachel discusses his own view about how utilitarianism is right in considering
consequences of actions, but is incorrect in ignoring other moral considerations.
Rachel also discusses Hedonism, which states that happiness is the ultimate good and therefore
unhappiness is the ultimate evil. He considers it as a misunderstanding of happiness because according
to him, ”Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake with other
things appreciated only as means of bringing it about. Instead happiness is a response we have to the
attainment of things that we recognize as goods, independently and in their own right.” I think that
there is not anything that is much clearer and sensible than his definition of happiness.
He also has some arguments about utilitarianism involving justice, rights and backward-looking
reasons or promises. There are some considerations in utilitarianism that violates these three like in
justice, using the example in the reading, it is right for a man to bear false witness to an innocent man to
stop the riot because it would create more happiness than unhappiness which really violates the
concept of justice, which is treating another person fairly. This is just an example on how Rachels discuss
issues and arguments regarding morality.
Page | 19
Learning
I learned that there are two kinds of utilitarianism, the act- and rule-utilitarianism. The difference
between these is that the act-utilitarianism is the original concept of utilitarianism and is just named as
such, while the rule-utilitarianism is a watered down version of utilitarianism that gives rule a greater
importance than they merit.
1. Do you think we are living in a hedonistic or a utilitarian lifestyle? Why?
2. Imagine our world is hedonistic, would everyone be happy? Why or why not?
3. Why do Rachels think that our moral common sense is not necessarily reliable?
4. What do you think is a better version of utilitarianism? The act- or the rule- utilitarianism?
5. Do you agree that utilitarianism comes into conflict with common sense?
Review Questions
1. Rachel says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are
they?
First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing
else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequences.
Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness
or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus right actions are those that
produce the greatest balance of happiness and unhappiness.
Third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is
to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare is equally
important. As Mill put in his Utilitarianism
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this
problem?
Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is

recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only as
means of bringing it about. Instead happiness is a response we have to the attainment of
things that we recognize as goods, independently and in their own right. The defenders of
utilitarianism sought a way to formulate their view without assuming a hedonistic account
for good and evil. One example is G.E. Moore, he tried to compile a short lists of things that
Page | 20
could be regarded as good things themselves and suggested that there are three obvious
intrinsic goods – pleasure, friendship and aesthetic enjoyment.
3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?
In justice, it requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and
merits. But utilitarianism suggests that in the case given, the best consequences would be
achieved by lying; therefore according to utilitarianism, lying is the thing to do, and this
would violate justices.
In rights, Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be
trampled on merely because on anticipates good results. In the case given, the utilitarian
conclusion would be that their actions were morally right because of the favourable balance
of happiness over unhappiness. What utilitarianism considers violates Ms. York’s right to
privacy and her legal rights.
And in promises, given a scenario in the reading, utilitarianism suggests that it is right if you
broke your promise because getting your work done would not outweigh the inconvenience
to your friend, but this is an obligation and a promise to a friend that you should be doing.
Utilitarianism, which says that consequences are the only things that matter, seems
mistaken.
4. Distinguish between rule- and act-utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the
objections?
Rule-utilitarianism is a modification and a new version of utilitarianism which states that

rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will then be judged
right or wrong by reference to the rules. While the original theory which is now commonly
called act-utilitarianism implies that each individual action is to be evaluated by reference to
its own particular consequences. To put it in another way, Rule-utilitarianism is an
unnecessarily watered-down version of the theory, which gives rule a greater importance
than they merit. Act-utilitarianism however is recognized to be a radical doctrine which
implies that many of our ordinary moral feelings may be mistaken.
Page | 21
5. What is the third line of defence?
The third line of defence was from a small group of contemporary utilitarians. As J.J.C. Smart
published “Admittedly utilitarianism does not have consequences which are incomparable
with the common moral consciousness, but I tended to take the view ‘so much worse for
the common moral consciousness.’ That is, was inclined to reject the common methodology
of testing general ethical principles by seeing how they square with our feelings in particular
instances.” This response essentially means according to Rachels as”So what?”
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.
I think this is acceptable to me because we shouldn’t always trust our moral common sense
because it is not necessarily reliable as Rachel implies. It may incorporate various rational
elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, our religion, and the general culture.
Common moral beliefs could be rejected and could be replaced by moral theories which have
much more basis and foundation than 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?
In my opinion, those who must be considered are beings that could experience happiness.
Nonhuman animals could not be considered because they don’t feel happiness, and even if they
could we don’t know how to identify it. And also in the case of lakes and streams, these are not
even beings, and they don’t even express pain or happiness so they couldn’t possibly be
considered to be a utilitarian.
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you
agree?
I agree with Rachels’ claim because people are not just members of an undifferentiated crowd.
Instead they are individuals who, by their own choices, show themselves to deserve different
kinds of responses as Rachel also says. Merit should be given moral consideration independent
of utility because people should be treated as what they deserve to be treated based on the way
they behave.
Page | 22
The Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant
Quote
“The will is conceived as a power of determining oneself to action in accordance
with the idea of certain laws. And such power can be found only in rational
beings.”
 To learn what is the Categorical Imperative
 How can it be applied to our lives
 How does it differ from other theories presented
Review
First of all, I was challenged by Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative because you need to
read it several times over before you could comprehend what it really means. Given that it was originally
in German, I think there are some things that are difficult to explain in English that was in German. But
all the same this reading did interest me and made me think critically and relate this topic to my
previous lessons. If this moral theory is read or just scanned, the reader could easily be confused and
mislead because this reading should be read from the first page to the last because there are some
topics that needs to be understood before the reader could understand the theory is really all about.
The example on this reading aid in understanding the theory and relates it to its readers. Like in
making promises or in suicide decisions, but still I am baffled in the second version of the categorical
imperative because of the “means” and “ends” language which confuses me. But in whole, this reading
contributed to my knowledge and understanding of other topics in which this was related.
Learning
I learned that categorical imperative theory implies that the right thing to do should always be in
accordance with the universal law. And that goodwill is good in itself and is not good based on the
results.
1. Can you apply the Categorical Imperative in your decisions?
Page | 23
2. If you were to apply this theory to your decisions, do you think that the consequence of it would
be good or would it be bad?
3. What do you mean by “means” and “ends”
4. What are some examples of goodwill if there are any?
5. Do you think that there are people who apply this theory in their life?
Review Questions
1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will
Immanuel Kant states that a goodwill a thing that is considered good without qualification. It is
not good because of its effects and outcomes; rather it is good in itself.
2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives
The hypothetical imperative is a maxim that does not conform with the universal law, while the
categorical imperative conforms with the universal law which means that a person’s maxim
should be the maxim of all others too if they were in that same situation.
3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of the universal law),
and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is that if a person decides on something, it
should be in accordance with the universal law. An example is when a person is about to commit
suicide, this maxim is not in line with the universal law because it contradicts itself and does not
fulfil the duty towards oneself. Another example is making promises to others in which you
would not keep; this maxim also is not in line with the universal law because it also contradicts
itself, promising something that you wouldn’t keep does not count as a promise.
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end)
and explain it.
The second version of the categorical imperative is that the end justifies the means, that human
beings could not be used as a means because they are rational beings which has a will of their
own and does not depend on nature.
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.
Page | 24
I think that the two versions of the categorical imperative are two different rules because in the
first categorical imperative, it states that the maxim of a person should be in accordance with
the universal law, while in the second version, it states that we should treat another person or
rational being not as a means but as an end.
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.
I don’t agree with Kant’s notion of an action that is not done from the motive of duty
and is acted upon other things has no moral worth. For me it does not necessarily mean that if
you do things based on the motive of duty, it already has a moral worth. For example, helping
the poor out of one’s goodwill or kindness, it is not motivated by duty, the person does not
think about his duty to others, rather he thinks about the well being and the interests of others.
In my opinion, this deed also deserves some moral worth because of what the person did was
from his heart and not only as a fulfilment or to finish his duty to others.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can
be used to justify non-moral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?
In my opinion this is a good criticism because categorical imperative is based on the universal
law on whether other persons would do the same thing if they are on the same situation. The
decision of the majority is not always correct, because you could justify immoral actions just
because the majority of people would do the same thing despite the fact that it is immoral.
Page | 25
Happiness and Virtue
Aristotle
Quote
“... for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of
things just so as far as the nature of the subject admits”
 To learn what does Aristotle mean by Happiness and Virtue
 How does Aristotle define Happiness and Virtue in contrast with other theories
Review
Aristotle’s Happiness and Virtue was made even before all the theorists in the book were born,
but for me, Aristotle’s theory was the most appealing but is the most difficult to apply because it is hard
to find a mean in a situation and it varies from one person to the other. This concept was also
demonstrated in Buddhism wherein they follow the middle way which is neither a defect nor a
deficiency in something. For me, this theory makes a lot of sense because too much of something is bad,
likewise also the deficiency, but isn’t it that by not possessing an excess and deficiency in things mean
that it is perfect? This theory is similar to Utilitarianism in a way that they both argue that happiness is
an end, that all of us seek happiness. I think that this is the nature of human beings, but isn’t it that
some people does things such as sacrifice, in which they don’t do the things that makes them happy for
others to be happy?
In reading this theory, I also had some difficulty and again have to read the essay several times
to absorb what it means and also to answer the questions included in the reading. But this theory made
me think and made me criticize and to impose questions regarding the theory. It also contributed some
new knowledge for me and to know some other possibilities of being moral which in Aristotle’s idea, is
to be in the middle.
Learning
I’ve learned how Aristotle defined happiness and virtue and on how he explained his theory of
the Middle Way.
Page | 26
1. How does Aristotle’s concept of Happiness different from Utilitarianism?
2. What concept of Happiness do you consider as morally right?
3. In your opinion, can everyone be happy as opposed to what Aristotle said?
4. Is “a life of pleasure” that Aristotle is referring to is the same as Utilitarianism or more of
Hedonism?
5. Why do you think Aristotle said that philosophers would be much happier than anybody else?
Review Questions
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to
pleasure?
Aristotle defines happiness as "an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue", and that it is
not only pleasure, honor or wealth. Happiness is related to virtue in a way that, the happiness of
a person differs from others because of their virtue, from what they do and what their nature is,
the happiness of one person would possibly mean nothing to others. Also, stated in the book,
"With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our account is in harmony;
for to virtue belongs virtuous activity", an example of which, also in stated in the book, is the
Olympic Games, where the most beautiful and the strongest are not crowned but those who
compete so those who act win, and rightly win the noble and good things in life. And to relate
happiness to pleasure, Aristotle said that those who are happy have a pleasant life, pleasant
meaning, is a lover of something. A person should not have a conflict in their pleasures, if they
do then that means that their pleasures are not by nature pleasant. People who are lovers of
what is noble find things that are by nature pleasant, and these are considered virtuous actions
by Aristotle. And to quote Aristotle on this "Happiness than is the best, noblest, and most
pleasant thing in the world".
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.
Aristotle explained moral virtue as "a result of training and habit", but he also explained that
none of these moral virtue naturally arises in us because no thing the exists could have a habit
that contradicts its own nature. One good example of his is a stone, which naturally moves
downward and couldn't be trained to go upwards no matter how you throw it up. Another is
fire, it always goes upward, and it is impossible to train or to even make it go downward
because it is its nature.
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot
be happy?
It is not possible for everyone in our society to be happy as Aristotle explained because there
are children and babies that are not yet capable of doing virtuous acts, according to Aristotle,
Page | 27
those children who are called happy are just congratulated by reason of the hopes that we have
for them. To be able to be happy, a person must go through a lot of things and changes which
children haven't experienced yet and you cannot call a person happy yet because even the most
successful persons could fall and be miserable.
Discussion Questions:
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong
with a life of pleasure?
Well in my opinion, a life of pleasure is a good life but it makes a person lax, lazy and bored
because you don't have to work hard and do things that you don't like just to have pleasure.
Also for me, not all pleasures are good or is good for a person because it is merely an indulgence
and as Aristotle said, anything in excess or in deficiency won't give you happiness. If you are
living a life of pleasure, then you must have all the material things that you want and have all
the things that you say be done, or something like that, and you won't think of anything else
than how to have more pleasure. I think this would make a person selfish and insensitive to
other persons around him and others who needs help because he/she is concerned only about
his/her satisfaction and pleasure.
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree
or not?
For me, the meaning of happiness differs from one person to another. Aristotle could claim that
a philosopher will be happier than anyone else, because he has his own meaning of happiness.
Well a I can say in his context, I agree on this matter because philosophers does live a life with
virtue and their habits are aligned with their nature. It is wonderful that you are the one who
knows things rather than you are the one who is asking. But in my opinion, anyone could be
happy as long as they are satisfied with what they have and are the ones who give happiness to
others.
Page | 28
The Nature and Value of Rights
Joel Feinberg
Quote
“To respect a person then or to think of him as possessed of human dignity,
simply is to think of him as a potential maker of claims.”
 To learn what is a “right”
 To understand its nature and value
Review
What I liked about Joel Feinberg’s reading is on how he explains his theory, he uses a language
that is easy to understand and is somewhat not formal compared to the other readings. He also has
some examples which really help in understanding and applying the theory to various situations.
Another thing that caught my attention was the apart when Feinberg somewhat criticizes Immanuel
Kant in saying that actions that are done based on motive of duty has moral worth, in which I also
disagree with. Like what Feinburg says, I also believe that moral worth is not exclusive only on actions
that was done based on the motive of duty, compassionate actions also deserves to have moral worth
because people who are doing these kind of acts does them because they want to help and not because
they have to help. One thing that interests me is on how he coined his terms like the “personal desert”, I
don’t understand why it is called as such or is it intended to be “personal dessert” in which a person
does those extra things to have a bonus or to have a treat from his boss or from anyone.
Learning
I learned the importance and the relation of rights and duties, and the meaning of personal
desert. The rest of the things that I’ve learned could be seen below.
1. How would you react if your personal desert is not appreciated?
2. In what scenarios could claim-right be applied?
3. Is there any period in history that Nowheresville seemed to exist?
4. Is the appreciation of personal desert moral?
Page | 29
5. Do you agree with Feinberg’s position regarding the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights
and duties?
Review Questions
1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?
According to Joel Feinberg, Nowheresville is a world like our own except that people don’t have
rights.
2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position
on this doctrine?
The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties states that all duties entail other
people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Meaning your duty is caused by the
right of other people, and the right of other people are your duty. Feinberg does not agree with
this doctrine because according to him duty is not something that you should do because it is
the right of other people but it is what you must do for others which surpasses what that person
could demand from you which is not a right.
3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in
Nowheresville?
According to Feinsberg, personal desert is something that is done by a person that is not
expected or is expressed in an agreement which is not expected of him and could or could not
be compensated. In Nowheresville, the personal desert is just like in our world but if the
response to their desert is not as they expect, they do not have the right to complain.
4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville
according to Feinsberg?
An example would best explain a sovereign right-monopoly. Using Feinsberg’s example, when
David killed Uriah, he claims that he have only sinned against God but not against his fellow
human. This could work in Nowheresville wherein the governing body is the one who accepts
the apology because the person who erred considers his mistake or sin as only against the
governing body but not against the person that he hurt or erred.
5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?
Claim-rights is something that could be demanded from another person whom has a duty to the
one who is demanding. Feinberg think that they are morally important because claiming is what
gives rights their moral significance according to Feinberg.
Page | 30
1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
Feinberg makes a convincing case for the importance of rights because he portrayed it in an
example wherein he creates an imaginary world called Nowheresville in which the people living
in that place don’t have rights. His example makes it much easier to appreciate the importance
of rights by providing a scenario which makes us compare a world without rights and our world.
2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?
Claim-rights is something that could be demanded from another person whom has a duty to the
one who is demanding.
Page | 31
Taking Rights Seriously
Ronald Dworkin
Quote
“If the Government does not take rights seriously, then it does not take law
seriously either”
 The meaning of “rights” according to Dworkin
 How the theory relates with other theories of Kant and Mill
Review
Ronald Dworkin explained his theory like Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it also challenging to
understand his idea because if you skipped some parts of the reading, it is easy to be misled and to be
confused about the theory. Dworkin’s essay requires the reader to read it several times to be able to
grasp his concept and to relate it to other theories. But even if it is hard to understand, it is really a good
reading because it discusses how the government defines the rights of its citizens and the basis which
they lie on. And the idea of the individual right, which I think is the strong sense of right and the right of
the majority which is somewhat like Utilitarianism. In my opinion, the right of the majority should be
used in defining the rights of the citizens because it considers the safety and the rights of others. It also
somehow expresses equality because in considering the individual right of a person, it is like favoring
that person’s right and neglecting other persons’ rights. It is also like egoism which the self-interest of a
person is considered over others. To summarize it, Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously is a good reading
and it enables the reader to think critically and to relate it to his self to be able to further understand it.
But still you have to read it several times over if you really want to absorb the meaning and the
implication of his ideas.
Learning
I learned two kinds of rights and on how it influences each other, also on how the government could
define the right of its citizens.
1. Do you think that the strong sense of right dignifies a person?
Page | 32
2. Does it necessary follow that a moral right should be a legal right?
3. What do you think would happen in legal rights were purely based on moral rights?
4. Is the right of the majority more important than an individual’s right?
5. Do you think that a person should break the law if he thinks that he is right in expressing his
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?
According to Dworkin, a right is where if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong
to interfere with them.
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.
Legal rights is what the law provides to the citizens to claim and would correspond to a lawsuit
when violated, while moral rights are rights that are dictated by morality and is not often
included in legal rights and does not result into a lawsuit but rather have a social consequence
of some sort depending on the situation. An example of a legal right that is not a moral right is
the freedom of speech, a citizen is entitle to say his own opinions or concerns or anything he
likes even if it does violate the moral right of others or do harm to other people. Another
example in which moral rights are not legal rights is equality, morality implies that all men
should be treated equally, a person could assert that he should be treated equally as with other
people, but he cannot file a lawsuit regarding equality because there is no existing law that
makes equality a legal right.
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which
does Dworkin find more attractive?
According to Dworkin, the first model is having a balance between the rights of an individual and
the demands of society at large. The second one is about political equality, it states that the
weaker members of the community is entitled to the same rights as the more powerful
members.
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
The first idea according to Dworkin is considering the individual rights of the citizens, which in
the strong sense is a right against the Government. And second is the rights of the majority in
which the government considers the risk to other people if they are to consider the individual
right of a person.
Page | 33
1. Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?
A person has a right to break the law if he believes that it is the right thing to do to exercise his
right and does not violate the rights of others.
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s Utilitarianism?
I don’t think that rights in the strong sense is compatible with Mill’s Utilitarianism because rights
as defined by Dworkin in the strong sense is if a person has a right to do something, then it is
wrong to prevent him from doing it. This would mean that if that person’s right could harm
other people or could result in the unhappiness of other people then it would contradict the
theory of Utilitarianism because it does result in the happiness of the majority, rather the
happiness of an individual is not greater than the unhappiness that his action does to others.
3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not?
I think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense because this theory rests on Kant’s idea
of treating individuals with dignity and the idea of political equality. By respecting the right of a
person in the strong sense, it somehow gives that person dignity in the sense that you “respect”
his right whether by not interfering with it.
Page | 34
A Theory of Justice
John Rawls
Quote
“The only reason for circumscribing the rights defining liberty and making men’s
freedom less extensive than it might otherwise be is that these equal rights as
institutionally defines would interfere with one another.”
 To understand Rawl’s Theory of Justice
 To relate it to other theories
Review
John Rawl’s Theory of Justice is an interesting theory because his idea is somewhat like
communism because of the idea of “equality” of the rights and duties but it differs by the distribution of
wealth and income, he states that by distributing wealth and authoritative positions, it could benefit all
the people concerned, while in communism wealth and duties are distributed equally, but the problem
with communism is that it preaches that all communists should be equal and there is not hierarchy of
command, but they fail in executing communism because they do have a leader, like in North Korea,
their leader is treated like a King, even a descendant of gods. This contradicts the very idea of equality in
communism. While in Rawl’s theory, those positions are open to all and the well-being of all concerned
are achieved by their cooperation despite the inequalities in wealth and income. One thing that the
reader should take into consideration is that the inequality is only just, when the more fortunate one
improves the situation of the less fortunate others.
Rawl discusses his theory clearly and could be understood easily compared to other theory that
takes more than one reading for the reader to absorb the essence of the idea. Like the Nowheresville of
Joel Feinberg, Rawl also presented a scenario or another world that serves as an example and basis for
discussion which effectively aids in the reader’s understanding. All in all A Theory of Justice is an
interesting and mind enriching topic.
Learning
I’ve learned many things like the two principles of justice, and the original position which was
the basis of the concepts that are discussed in this reading and also the implication of this theory on
some of the modern issues.
Page | 35
1. Do you think it is possible to apply Rawl’s principles of justice in our current society?
2. Is it possible that by having inequalities in the distribution of wealth and income that all people
concerned could benefit equally?
3. Do you agree that all people should have equal rights and duties?
4. Isn’t that equality in wealth and income an obvious answer in having equal rights and duties?
5. Does Rawl’s theory portrays a kind or a modified theory of Utilitarianism?
Review Questions
1. Carefully explain Rawl’s conception of the original position.
Rawl explained the conception of the original position as a purely hypothetical situation which is
characterized to be able to facilitate conception of justice. The conception of justice in this
situation is possible because there is a veil of ignorance that makes a person unaware of his own
social status, strength, weaknesses, and such. In this original position, all persons seem to be
equal and the agreements that are made within it are fair.
2. State and explain Rawl’s first principle of justice.
The first principle of justice stated by Rawl is that “each person is to have an equal right to the
most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. This simply means that
all persons should have the same rules and liberties should be applied equally to everyone.
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be
sacrificed?
The second principle of justice is “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and attached to positions and
offices open to all...”. This second principle states that everyone should benefit from the
inequality in wealth and income such that the more fortunate ones should improve the situation
of the less fortunate.
The first principle of justice is prioritized and cannot be sacrificed because the equality of liberty
and opportunity should also apply in the social and economic inequalities to be able to make it
an advantage to all.
Page | 36
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 a right to engage in homosexual activities as long
as they don’t interfere with other? 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?
The first principle allows liberties and rights that are defined by the given rules in the first place.
What they are allowed to do is limited by the rights and duties that are established and followed
in major institutions of the society. It does not mean that people have the right to engage in
homosexual activities just because they don’t interfere with other people’s rights, they are not
allowed to engage in this kind of act because there is a moral rights that are violated by this kind
of activities. People could not also produce and view pornography even if it does not restrict
anyone’s freedom because in the first place, the essence of freedom is doing what is right, by
producing and viewing pornography, freedom is already violated in such acts. And also in the
issue of taking drugs in the privacy of their homes, this also does not fall under the first principle
because this activity goes against the law which prohibits the use of drugs and is already
established and followed by major institutions.
2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different
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?
It is not possible for the free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different
distribution of wealth and income because everyone’s well-being in that situation depends on
the cooperation the people involved. That cooperation is brought about by the inequality in the
distribution of wealth and income, and that those who have the greater benefits would improve
the situation of the unfortunate persons. If they adopt socialism, then the cooperation of the
people would not exist because all of them are given equal wealth and income. In my opinion
socialism is not as rational as capitalism because in capitalism, people who are wealthy are
those who are compensated because of their hard work, while in socialism, there is no
difference between the compensation because all people are treated equally and are given
equal wealth and income regardless of the effort exerted by different individuals.
Page | 37
The Need for More than Justice
Annette Baier
Quote
“The best moral theory is one that harmonizes justice and care”
 To learn why Annette Baier asserts the need for more than justice
 To discover what other things are needed besides justice
Review
Annette Baier presented a theory that attacks the patriarchal theories namely Kant’s and Rawl’s
justice perspective. She states that the care perspective is also needed besides justice. Her theory
somewhat defends women and other oppressed people that are left out from other theories concerning
morality. One thing that I liked about this reading is that they effectively defended the woman’s side
which is the care perspective and asserts that even if women are less irrational than men, that they do
not possess “a legal sense”, this is not because they are mentally inferior, it is just because women views
things differently from men because of their experiences and their duties that are different from men
who were offered a privileged role in the society. As other reading, Baier’s The Need for More Than
Justice is not easy and yet not hard to understand, in reading this theory we need to concentrate and
picture a scenario on our imagination which Baier portrays to fully understand the concepts.
Learning
I learned how Baier and other moralists defended that there is a need more than just justice,
which is the care perspective in which the people who were not included in the justice perspective
should be included in the modern moral theories.
1. Do you agree with Baier’s theory that there is a need for more than just justice?
2. In what way does Kant disregards women and others who are not privileged people?
3. In your opinion, is justice and care enough for our society to be peaceful?
4. What is your position regarding “reason over emotion”?
5. Do you think that male and female wisdom could have a union or be “married”?
Page | 38
Review Questions
1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these
perspectives develop?
Baier argues that the justice perspective is not enough to be a moral theory because it overlooks
inequalities between people, has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it ignores the
importance of moral emotions such as love, while the care perspective is a felt concern for the
good of others and for community with them.
2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of
this theory?
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has three stages; the first is the pre-conventional level
in which what matters is the pleasing of the parent or authority figure. Second is the
conventional level, which the child already tries to fit into a group and follows its rules and
standards. And last is the post-conventional critical level, in which those rules are put to the
tests like that of a Utilitarian or Kantian kind. Gilligan says that Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development are more of a progression of mutual respect and not of mutual care. Baier says
that the care perspective in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development would only be an option
and is not included on the “minimum” which is justice and rights, so the care perspective is left
only as an extra for those who are willing to proceed to responsibility and care.
3. Baier says that there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics.
What are these differences?
The three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics are the following, the
relative weight put on relationships between equals, the relative weight put on freedom of
choice, and on the authority of intellect over emotions.
4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?
Baier attacks the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions is because reason
is not the basis for becoming the person that we should be, be it the role of a parent, or want in
any relationship. Like in the case of parenting, as Baier’s example, a father should let his reason
preside over his emotions when their children enrage them, but in mothers, emotions should
preside over reason because they have to love their children and not just to control their
emotions.
Page | 39
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 rights?
Baier means by transvaluing the values of the patriarchal past is the use of the values of the
patriarchs in asserting the claims of women and other unprivileged people. The new values do
not replace the new ones but is rather used to defend the right of the oppressed. Also, we do
not abandon the old values of justice, freedom and rights, we just modified and added some
essential details to it that would include the women, the black, the children, and those who
were marginalized in the traditional theory of justice.
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?
The Kantian view dictates that women are incapable of legislation or formulation of law, also
could not vote, and needs the guidance of men who are considered as “more rational” as to
women. To quote what Baier said to this view “so much the worse for the male fixation on the
special skill of drafting legislation, for the bureaucratic mentality of the rule worship, and for the
male exaggeration of the importance of independence over interdependence”.
3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our
parents, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very
important?
We have a freedom of choice about many things, which is very important because by deciding
things for ourselves, we would learn lessons from the mistakes that we’ve made from bad
decisions rather than having a parent or someone else who decides for us. We should be the
one who has the decision because we are the ones who would suffer the consequence or the
result of that decision and no one knows ourselves better but us.
Page | 40
Source
White, J. E. CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS (SEVENTH EDITION).
Page | 41
Copyright Receipts
Page | 42
Use Case Diagram of Existing System
Page | 43
Copyright Registration System Use Case
Narrative
Fill-up Copyright Form
Identification summary
Title: Fill-up Copyright Form
Summary: This use case allows the applicant to fill-in the needed information on the form
Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff
Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???
Version: ??? Person in Charge:
Flow of Events
Preconditions:
1. The National Library should be open
2. The material that to be copyrighted is finished
3. There should be an applicant
Main Success Scenario:
1. The applicant gets an application form from the Copyright office

2. Then the applicant should fill-in the information on the form
3. The applicant should purchase a stamp
4. The affidavit should be notarized
5. The applicant gives back the form to the Copyright office
Alternative Sequences:
1. The applicant already has a form

1. The applicant has already completed a form which is downloaded from the Library’s site
2. The applicant should proceed in purchasing a stamp
Error Sequences:
1. The affidavit hasn’t been notarized

a. The affidavit isn’t notarized because there is no notary public available
Page | 44
b. Use case ends
2. There is no stamp to be purchased
a. There are no stamps available in the store
b. Use case ends
3. There is no form to be given
a. There are no forms to be given to the applicant
b. Use case ends
Pay Copyright Fee

Title: Pay Copyright Fee
Summary: This use case allows the applicant to pay the copyright fee needed to proceed in
registering
Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff, Cashier
Flow of Events
Preconditions:
1. The cashier should be open

2. The copyright office is still open
3. The applicant should have a filled-up form
1. The copyright staff signs the form and indicates the amount to be paid
2. The applicant pays the copyright fee to the cashier
3. The cashier issues a receipt to the applicant
1. There are some fields needed to be filled-up

1. The applicant has left a blank field
2. The applicant fills up the blank and submits the form back to the copyright staff
Error Sequences:
Page | 45
1. The cashier is closed
a. The cashier closed before the applicant could pay the copyright fee
b. Use case ends
File Copyright Request

Title: File Copyright Request
Summary: This use case allows the applicant to file a copyright request to the copyright office
Flow of Events
Preconditions:
1. The material should have two copies

2. The applicant have paid the copyright fee
3. The form is verified by the copyright staff
1. The applicant submits the form, material, and receipt to the copyright staff
2. The copyright staff files the form and material to be copyrighted
3. The copyright staff returns the receipt with a claim stub to the applicant
1. The applicant has only one copy of the material

1. The applicant has one copy of the material
2. The applicant should provide one more copy of the material
Error Sequences:
1. The copyright office is already closed

a. The copyright office is already closed when the applicant returned
b. Use case ends
Page | 46
Ask Copyright Information
Title: Ask Copyright Information
Summary: This use case allows the applicant to ask for information from the copyright staff
Flow of Events
Preconditions:
1. The copyright staff should be present

2. The national library should be open
1. The applicant asks a question to the copyright staff

2. The staff answers the applicant
1. The applicant has another question

1. The applicant asks another question to the copyright staff
2. The staff answers the applicant
Error Sequences:
1. The copyright staff is not present

a. The applicant goes in the copyright office and the copyright staff is not present
b. Use Case ends
Page | 47
Activity Diagram of Existing System
Page | 48
Page | 49
Page | 50
Page | 51
Use Case Diagram of Proposed System
Page | 52

Book Review of Contemporary Moral Problems

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Book Review of Contemporary Moral Problems

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DE LA SALLE – COLLEGE OF SAINT BENILDE

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306

 Differentiate and learn about psychological and ethical egoism

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

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

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

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

2. What is the moral implication of this theory?

3. How does the Master- and Slave-Morality works.

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

3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality

Master-morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom while salve-morality is

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

2. Why is it considered as a doctrine of immoralism

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

According to Midgley, moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it

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

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

2. And what are the replies given by the defenders of utilitarianism

Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is

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

Rule-utilitarianism is a modification and a new version of utilitarianism which states that

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.

2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s Utilitarianism?

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

Title: Fill-up Copyright Form

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff

Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???

Version: ??? Person in Charge:

1. The National Library should be open

2. The material that to be copyrighted is finished

3. There should be an applicant

Main Success Scenario:

1. The applicant gets an application form from the Copyright office

1. The applicant already has a form

1. The affidavit hasn’t been notarized

Pay Copyright Fee

Title: Pay Copyright Fee

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff, Cashier

Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???

Version: ??? Person in Charge:

1. The cashier should be open

Main Success Scenario:

1. There are some fields needed to be filled-up

File Copyright Request

Title: File Copyright Request

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff

Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???

Version: ??? Person in Charge:

1. The material should have two copies

Main Success Scenario:

1. The applicant has only one copy of the material

1. The copyright office is already closed

Title: Ask Copyright Information

Actors: Applicant, Copyright Staff

Creation Date: ??? Date of Update: ???

Version: ??? Person in Charge:

1. The copyright staff should be present

Main Success Scenario:

1. The applicant asks a question to the copyright staff

1. The applicant has another question