Contemporary Moral

Problems
On a Student’s Perspective

Alberto Nel R. Mateo V

De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde

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

Philippines License.
 Table of Contents
DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................3

PREFACE..........................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 1: EGOISM AND MORAL SCEPTICISM.......................................................5

CHAPTER 2: RELIGION, MORALITY AND CONSCIENCE ...........................................6

CHAPTER 3: MASTER AND SLAVE MORALITY...........................................................7

CHAPTER 4: TRYING OUT ONE'S NEW SWORD ........................................................8

CHAPTER 5: UTILITARIANISM.......................................................................................9

CHAPTER 6: THE DEBATE AGAINST UTILITARIANISM............................................10

CHAPTER 7: THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE .......................................................12

CHAPTER 8: HAPPINESS AND VIRTUE......................................................................13

CHAPTER 9: THE NATURE AND VALUE OF RIGHTS................................................14

CHAPTER 10: TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY..............................................................15

CHAPTER 11: A THEORY OF JUSTICE.......................................................................16

CHAPTER 12: THE NEED FOR MORE THAN JUSTICE..............................................17

2
 Dedication

This book is dedicated to all the people that have helped me in order to
produce this output:

First is to my parents who shoulder the expenses of this book.

Second, is to my ITEHTICS classmates that help me to have meaningful

ideas, through their different opinions during discussions, to be written in this
book.

Lastly, is to myself, which is the main source of all the inputs of this
book through my perseverance and determination that I was able to finish it
and do it with all my best.

3
 Preface

It is been a very critical question as to how people would differentiate and be

able to identify which is right or wrong. That is why there is a study of right and
wrong. It is called ethics. In this material, it focuses on the contemporary moral
problems that we are encountering at our times. It may not include all of them
because the reference book was published at year 2003. Even so, these problems
are still worth seeing because there is a need to do so. This may involve critical
points that can help our society to be better in terms of decision-making. This
material is mainly an understanding of the author on how he perceives those moral
problems. He takes the neutral point to better explain the different arguments so
that it would be easier to understand them. Thus, it can only mean that this reading
is basically the point of view of the author to those moral issues.

So why not explore the world of thinking and see for yourselves. It may give
you a better idea as to why our society is like this and at the same time having a
practice of critical thinking which a characteristic of a rational being.

4
Chapter 1: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0534584306/

Quote:
"The thing to be lamented is, not that men have do great regard to their own
good or interest in the present world, for they have not enough."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the essence of Egoism and Moral Skepticism.

Review:
This chapter focuses on the two kinds of egoism. These are mainly the ethical
and the psychological egoism. These two might be synonymous, but they are far
different from each other when they are properly analyzed.

Psychological egoism is the perspective wherein humans are selfish in

everything they that they do in which they only act in accordance to their self
interest. If we are to analyze it, it may have some sort of truth in it. But going
deeper can give us a clue that humans are not always selfish in their acts. A very
good example is when someone foregoes his own enjoyment for the sake of helping
other people. We can't say that it is an act of selfishness but it is can be considered
as an act of self-interest if it is in which case. It's because that if the interest of that
person is the welfare of others, then that is not acting selfishly. Another thing that
would support the idea of humans being unselfish is that when a person get
satisfied in helping others. We can't say that it is for his own interest because there
will be no selfish person that would become satisfied when helping others.
Ethical egoism on the other hand, tells us that humans are only obliged to act
for themselves and nothing else. If we are to find some logical error into it, then
there might be none. But there are things that it does which shouldn't be the case.
It challenge our moral confidence to a demand of an explanation on the reason of
adopting policies in which other's welfare are given importance. Thus it forgets the
value of sympathy that every human has. A human without sympathy can't be
considered as one. It is to say that in these kinds of arguments, reason alone is not
the solution.

What I have learned:

• Both types of egoism have their own pitfalls.
• Humans are not selfish in nature.
• Self interest and Selfishness are two different things.
• There are more things in consideration aside from reason alone.

Integrative Questions:
• What is the difference between the two types of egoism?
• How can human be unselfish?
• What is the value that is forgotten in ethical egoism
• What are the types of egoism?

5
 • How is self interest differing from selfishness?

Chapter 2: Religion, Morality and Conscience

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

White/dp/0534584306/

Quote: "Reflection is morally indispensable."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the difference of religion and morality and how they
can be related to each other.

Review:
In this chapter, John Arthur discusses the connection of religion to morality.
On the later part, he explained how these two things are different to each other in a
detailed manner but somehow can influence each other. He also concludes in this
chapter that conscience is in a social means in which where morality became the
same. It is the reason as to why morality can be studied and learned.
First, we might be wondering that we are somehow sure that religion is
essentially connected to morality. But if we are to think of it again, we can conclude
that religion is not important in gaining morality. We can say it by merely observing
ourselves when we are making a decision. We create our decision based on
different factors but we don't necessarily include religion onto it or maybe we don't
mind it at all. Thus, we can conclude that morality does not depend on religion.
Another distinction is that morality involves attitude towards different forms of
behavior while religion involves worship and beliefs to a supernatural being. See
now? Religion can be somehow inside morality because having a religion may
differentiate a behavior of a certain person.
These two may be connected in a way that they influence each other.
Religion can influence morality in terms of motivation on doing what it right. On the
other hand, morality influences religion through the concept and existence of
conscience. It is also discussed that morality can't be dependent on religion in
applying the divine command theory. It's because a command cannot be associated
to what is good or bad. An example is that the parents want us to do well but it
doesn't mean that what they command us to do is always good.
As to conclude the argument of Arthur, We can say that morality is social
because it depends on social factors like the things we learn from interaction. In line
with the conscience, there is the possibility in which God plays a role into it. It is for
the reason that putting ourselves in the situation of others helps us to reflect on
what is the right thing to do. Thus, we can consider the reaction of others (including
God). This leads to the essence that morality is not only to be taught but a must to
be had by every person.

What I have learned:

• Role of God in conscience
• Difference of morality and religion
• Morality as social
• Connection of morality, religion and conscience

6
 • Importance of morality to people

Integrative Questions:
• What are things involved in morality?
• What are things involved in religion?
• How is conscience related to morality?
• Why does God play a role in terms of conscience?
• How the divine command theory is to be disassociated with morality?

Chapter 3: Master and Slave Morality

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

Quote: "The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn the meaning and gap between the master and slave
morality.

Review:
This chapter discusses two types of morality according to what kind of person
is holding it. These are the master morality and slave morality. These two things
seem to be of the opposite side but both entail right and wrong character which
teaches us to be observant on how we will act.
The first type is the master morality. This type is the one which can also be
consider as the morality of the ruler. Here, we can say that those people are the
ones which they think that they are the ones who identify what is good or evil. This
leads to a synonymous term which is the noble and despicable. A noble man
considers himself distinguish from others and whatever he says will be praised and
acknowledge by the many. He always thinks that everything he has is good and
what they don't have is bad. Thus, he labels himself as the determinant of values.
We may somehow see this kind of attitude in an egoist. Both of them use morality
only for self-glorification. They may be able to help those that are unfortunate, but it
is not because of kindness or pity, rather it is because of the superabundance of
their resources that they want to find some usage for it rather for it to waste. They
always honor themselves in the way that they see themselves powerful and he is
the only one who has power over himself. The good thing here is that a noble man
knows the manner to speak and to keep silence. The point here is that this type of
morality considers that everything that entails them to be more powerful will always
be consider as good even it destroys other people.
The second and last type is the slave morality. This type is also known to be
the morality of the ruled. Here there is the despised for the virtue of the powerful
and distrust to everything that is considered good for those nobles. In this kind of
morality, they consider having power to be of evil since it is the cause of their
oppression. They also consider that those who spread fear are the ones who are bad
while when it comes to the perspective of master morality, it is considered to be
good. In this kind of morality, one can be considered as good when he is good-
natured and easily deceived. Thus, they have a characteristic that is not appropriate
in our kind of world. It is their stupidity. Even so, they have a great character in

7
which everyone would also have in our world nowadays. It is their desire for
freedom. It is a character which helps them to strive for happiness and to find their
own liberty. It can’t be seen by those nobles didn't endure suffering at the first
place.
Even the two types of morality have their own pros and cons. It is just the
matter of judgment as to what we retain and what we need to extinguish in order to
live a morally good life.

What I have learned:

• Both types of morality have their positive and negative characteristics.
• The two types of morality could be a gauge of power in the society.
• It is power that separates master and slave morality.

Integrative Questions:
• What is master morality?
• What is slave morality?
• What is the other term referring to the slave morality?
• What are the major characteristics of master morality?
• What are the major characteristics of slave morality?

Chapter 4: Trying Out One's New Sword

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

Quote:
"There is only one world and we all have to live in it."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about moral isolationism and if it really is applicable to our
society.

Review:
This chapter focuses on the concept of moral isolationism and on how this
became unreal in our society. Here, Mary Midgley pointed out some important
factors and imposes some questions that would eventually lead us into conclusion
that this moral isolationism is unreal. It is to say that we can be able to understand
other cultures aside from our own and be able to make a moral judgment based on
our understanding. It is far from the concept of moral isolationism that we should
not judge other culture because we are not in the position to do so. But as we
review the questions posed by Midgley, we may say that it is not impossible to
understand other cultures.
First thing to be asked is that "does isolating barrier work both ways?" This
might be a little confusing but the truth here is that even we don't criticize other
cultures, we are aware that they can criticize us. That is why this barrier is only on a
one way basis. They can judge us based on their experience with us (if there is any).
Thus, they learn from their experience. Next, is to ask is "does the isolating barrier
between cultures block praise as well as blame?" For me, it is obvious that this
question is adds to the weight of making moral isolationism irrelevant. We all know
that we do praise or blame other people even we don't have enough knowledge as

8
to why we need to do that. Same goes to the culture. We can praise or condemn
their culture even we are on the outside of it as a long as we do criticize it.
Therefore, we can't judge without supporting knowledge about it. Third is to ask
"what is involved in judging" This questions leads us to the term information
gathering. We can't say something to others without knowledge of what to say.
Doing so leads us to nowhere. This takes us to our last question that "if we can't
judge other cultures, can we really judge our own?" This is really a great question
which, for me, gives the right basis to make moral isolationism irrelevant. We can
say that it is like this or like that but in the end, we know nothing about our own. It
is for the reason that judgment encompasses external factors which helps us make
a decision. Thus, we can't judge our own culture if there is no outsider that would
give his/her opinion to it.
With all of these questions to be answer, one thing is for sure. It is that we
are only in the same world with the same position to criticize and be criticized by
other forces that surround us. This helps us to know more of our own and have
knowledge of others too. Thus, we are all mixed even though we have diversity in
our culture.

What I have learned:

• Moral isolationism prevents us from knowing our own culture.
• Moral isolationism is irrelevant in our context of society.
• Respect is earned not demanded.
• Judgment is not only to the outside forces but also to us.

Integrative Questions:
• What is Moral Isolationism?
• Where does praise or blame came from?
• What term is associated when judging?
• What is it that judgment composed of that makes us aware of others?
• What makes Moral Isolationism unreal?

Chapter 5: Utilitarianism
Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0534584306/

Quote:
"Happiness is desirable."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the principle of Utilitarianism.

Review:
In this chapter, John Stuart Mill focuses on the concept of Utilitarianism or the
principle of greatest happiness. This concept states that happiness comes from all
that is good. The so-called good in this principle is defined to be what is desirable. In
other words, what is pleasurable to us is good. In this principle, Mill introduced some
concepts for us to clearly understand the principle of utilitarianism.

9
 First among of these is the concept of measurement among different
pleasures. He said that it can be through its quality or quantity. Quantity is merely
obvious, for it focuses on the amount of pleasure we have. Quality on the other
hand does not refer to the standard but rather to the desire to have it or the
preference of the person that wants to acquire that certain pleasure for himself.
The next is the concept of intellectual and bodily pleasure. This is where
there is a misunderstanding to which is greater among the two. Of course bodily
pleasure gives comfort to our senses that experience it while intellectual is on our
mind. The answer to which is greater, it depends upon the mindset of the person.
There may be some that chooses bodily over intellectual pleasure and vice versa.
The third is the concept of the ends and means. This concept may not be
explicitly present at the reading but it is more stress in the part of some pleasures
which are not by default but rather created by us. Examples of which are our desire
for money, power and fame. These may not be the real ends of the said principle
but can also be one through the choice of the people that wants to acquire them
and feels pain in not having able to do so.
The last is the concept of the real end. It is the one that makes me think that
Utilitarianism is not bad at all. This concept tells us that the greater end of this
principle is not our own happiness but happiness of all. Thus it allows to even
making virtue a pleasure even not creating pleasure for our self but at least
contributing to the greater end of the principle.
All of these concepts only tell us that greater understanding is required in
order to make judgment on such principle. Thus, considering the principle of utility,
we can still be able to know what is right or wrong and act morally by just realizing
the greater end of it.

What I have learned:

• Four concepts surrounding the principle of utility
• Happiness of all is the real end of Utilitarianism
• Humans can create desirable pleasures for themselves

Integrative Questions:
• What is the main idea of Utilitarianism?
• How many concepts are introduced to understand Utilitarianism?
• What is the real end of Utilitarianism?
• Where does the measurement of pleasure depend?
• What is needed in order to act morally through the Principle of Utility?

Chapter 6: The Debate against Utilitarianism

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

Quote:
"They are individuals who, by their choices, show themselves to deserve
different kinds of responses."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about some arguments over Utilitarianism and how they
defend over it.

10
Review:

This chapter focuses on some of the arguments that are being posed on the
principle of utility or Utilitarianism and the defense of the Utilitarianism on these
arguments. Upon reading the whole topic, we can come to a conclusion whether
these arguments are implying that the principle itself is wrong or it should only just
be modified.
This principle come against some arguments and the reading gives us 3 of
them. These are Justice, Rights and Backward-Looking Reason. First is justice,
Utilitarianism tends to measure the happiness that it would bring to a person. Thus,
it is possible that they defer it in accordance to the happiness that they could gain.
Next, is the right which can also be violated that these rights are trampled for the
sake of pleasure that those people who have done it. Even though that those deeds
didn't affect the supposedly victim. There is still a wrong treatment on that person.
In the case that there is unhappiness brought to the victim, it is not a reason to
weigh the happiness gain by the person and the unhappiness on the side of the
victim. It is for the reason that their happiness matters because their theory already
states that the happiness refers to the welfare of the common. Thus, they violated
their own principle. The last is the Backward-Looking Reason in which the mistake
here of the said principle is that they forget to give importance on past commitment
which can also brought consequences to them. It is a matter of weighing those
things if there is a need to choose among them.
All these arguments are also defended by the philosophers of Utilitarianism.
Their first defense is that those examples used are unrealistic. Thus, it makes those
examples irrelevant in being arguments to the principle itself. Next defense is the
reformation of the theory in which they consider the rules that are created and not
the rule created from the principle itself which is called rule-utilitarianism. Their last
defense is that they proposed that feelings should be discarded rather than the
theory. In this way, the theory can be defensible by rethinking those matters that
we had ignored.
On these arguments and defenses, one thing is for sure, there is a positive
and negative side of this principle. It is wrong to rely on common sense for it can
mislead us because it is only our subscription to the common knowledge in our
society. The good part on the other hand is that this theory only based on rationality
which could help us be responsible in our acts.

What I have learned:

• The three arguments against Utilitarianism
• The defense line on the Utilitarian Philosophers
• The positive and negative characteristics of Utilitarianism

Integrative Questions:
• Why Justice became an argument against Utilitarianism?
• Why Rights became an argument against Utilitarianism?
• Why Backward-Looking Reasons became an argument against Utilitarianism?
• What are some defenses given against those arguments?
• What is the advantage and disadvantage of Utilitarianism?

11
Chapter 7: The Categorical Imperative
Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0534584306/

Quote:
"Rational nature exists as an end in itself."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the essence of categorical imperative to morality.

Review:
This chapter focuses on the concept of Categorical Imperative. This principle
states that "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law." In analyzing the principle at the first glance,
it is a law which is an objective principle that should be done and also valid to all
rational beings. It is different from maxim which is a subjective principle that has
practical rule determined by its subject. Therefore, it is a rule where the subject acts
unto it. As analysis go in depth, we can place some examples that might help us
more understand the main point of the categorical imperative.
In the reading, it has given four examples to demonstrate if those things are
to be considered as a universal law. First is that when committing suicide because
of misfortunes in life. It can be for the reason that person want to shorten his/her
hardships with his love for himself. But this contradicts itself to which you won't end
your life if you love it. Thus it can't be a universal law of nature. Next is borrowing
money even you know that you can't pay it back. It surely can’t become a universal
law because it violates the very meaning of promise. Third is having talent but
doesn't want to use it. It is also can't become a universal law for it is necessary on a
rational being to develop all the powers he has since it could eventually help him.
The last is the sort of indifference in which you won't bother to put attention on
people struggling on hardships that he can help. It is true that it can become a
universal law because of showing good will and sympathy. But it is also to conflict in
itself because there could be many instances where hope and sympathy is needed.
If this kind of nature will always comes from his own will, it would make him gets all
hope that we wants for himself leading to too much dependencies on others.
In order to conclude this principle, Kant uses the formula of means and ends.
It defines means as the ground for an action whose possible result is an end. End,
on the other hand is the thing that serves the will as a subjective ground of its self-
determination. Thus considering this formula, we can derive the categorical
imperative as follows: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end".

What I have learned:

• Difference of maxim and law.
• Means and Ends
• Two forms of categorical imperative

Integrative Questions:
• What is the first form of Categorical Imperative?

12
 • What is a law?
• What is a maxim?
• What are Means and Ends?
• What is the second form of Categorical Imperative? (The one in accordance to
the formula of means and ends)

Chapter 8: Happiness and Virtue

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

Quote:
"The life of the man who is active in accordance with virtue will be happy."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn how happiness is connected to virtues.

Review:
In this chapter, Aristotle states that all humans seek happiness. In this
statement, he has a different view of happiness than how principle of utility defines
it. He says that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance to virtue. In this
reading, Aristotle separate virtue in two kinds. These are the moral and intellectual
virtue. Moral virtue is a state of character that is in the middle of vice of excess and
deficiency. Intellectual virtue on the other hand is the one that produces the most
perfect happiness and it is found in the activity of mind through reason or
meditation.
The reading has identified happiness as the final end of human deeds. It is for
the reason that it is chosen for itself and not for something else. This happiness
though, is not about pleasure but more on virtuous activity. In order to understand
this definition of happiness, we must know the nature of virtue itself. Virtue is the
mean of the excess and deficiency of two vices. An example of is pleasure and pain,
which are both extremes on its ends as vices. We can conclude that temperance
could be their mean or intermediate. It’s because an excess of it would be self-
indulgence and its deficiency would be in a form of insensible. Thus in the context
of virtue, there must be excess and deficiency. But this thing doesn’t always meet
the standard. It’s for the reason that some actions may not have excess and
deficiency like war. Unlike the other kind which is more of the contemplative way. It
is the intellectual virtue. This focuses on the reason of human beings which is not
like the moral ones that needs some equipment to do so. Thus it turns to be the
perfect source of happiness in consideration with the supernatural beings like gods.
It’s because we don’t expect them to act in accordance to those virtues of acts.
Therefore, for us humans, we also need some things in order to become self
sufficient because our nature is not suited for contemplation alone. Thus, what we
need is the mean of moral virtue and the perfect intellectual virtue in order to act
according to it and be able to live happy.

What I have learned:

• Nature of Virtue

13
 • Happiness is a virtuous activity
• Both kinds of virtues is needed for humans to act upon it.

Integrative Questions:
• What is happiness according to Aristotle?
• What is a virtue?
• What are the two kinds of virtue?
• What kind of virtue is the one that depends on some external equipment?
• What kind of virtue do humans need in order to act through it?

Chapter 9: The Nature and Value of Rights

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

Quote:
"Stand up like men."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the importance and value of rights in our world.

Review:

This chapter explains how human beings are in need of rights and its value to
us. In order to illustrate on what would be the difference if humans don't have
rights, Joel Feinberg allows us to imagine a world which is almost identical to what
we have except for one thing. This one thing is the rights. He called this imaginary
world as Nowheresville. In this imaginary world, we can see that it may somehow be
appealing to our senses but if we try to diagnose it further, we may see something
which still lacks in this world. This may have all good things that is also present in
our world like duties, personal desert and sovereign monopoly of rights but it still
doesn't make any relevance at all. It is for the reason that people on that world
doesn’t have rights. Now we may ask that why rights are morally important to us?
Feinberg give some few key points in order to stress this out.
First of all, in Nowheresville, people can't claim something that is due to
them. What they have is only the feeling of gratitude when it is given to them and
nothing when it is not. This claim is a kind of it in which we make sure that people
would listen to us. That kind of thing is not present in the Nowheresville. Next and
the last is that, when people have rights, they can somehow gain significance in the
world where they live. It makes us capable of having the feeling of being equal to
with other people fundamentally. Thus, we can gain at least the minimum of self-
respect because of respect for the rights we have. That is called "human dignity".
That is one of the most important things that a human must have which is not
present in our imaginary world which truly makes sense.

What I have learned:

• Rights has moral importance

14
 • Human dignity is absent in the Nowheresville
• Human dignity makes people a potential creator of claims

Integrative Questions:
• What is Nowheresville?
• What is lacking in Nowheresville?
• How rights do become morally important?
• What kind of claim do rights gives us?
• What is Human dignity?

Chapter 10: Taking Rights Seriously

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

White/dp/0534584306/

Quote:
"If the Government does not take rights seriously, then it does not take law
seriously either."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the essence rights to people's lives.

Review:
This chapter focuses on some key points as to how human act according to
their rights. It may also point out as to how rights should be used and when is the
right time that we should claim for it. These key points may somehow tell us where
the rights of the people seem to be in the right place.
At first, we would argue that there are times as to which we wonder if the
Government is violating our rights. This makes us also ask if we have the rights to
go against the Government itself. In doing so, we are most likely fall on the
confusion of our rights. One point of determining the correctness of using our rights
is to weigh it against the rights of the common. By doing this, we can somehow
have knowledge if exercising that certain right of ours is appropriate at that specific
situation. The second point is that all people especially the minorities must also
have the same concern and respect earn from the Government. This makes things
clearer that if some have the right to speech, then all must have. We should only
consider that every thing that is done has its consequences. Thus, even exercising
of our rights may also have. It may not be to us but most likely to others. That is
why we should be mindful and aware that what we do will not causes harm to
others.

So as for the question of do we really need to take rights seriously, the very
answer is yes. It is because we should be all aware of our acts to which we don't
deprive other's rights. As for the Government, they must also take it seriously
because if they don't, then they also take law seriously in order to serve their
constituents properly.

What I have learned:

• Connection of Law and Rights

15
 • Rights is a serious matter to the society
• Two forms of categorical imperative

Integrative Questions:
• Where do people fall when have rights in violating the Government?
• What is the connection of rights and law?
• Why do we need to take rights seriously?
• What should people be always remindful in themselves?
• Why should Government always have to consider rights?

Chapter 11: A Theory of Justice

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

Quote:
"The principles must be specified so that they yield a determinate
conclusion."

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn some perspectives about justice.

Review:
In this chapter, the author wants to tell us that there are two main principles
of justice that he has define. The first one is about the basic freedom that everyone
should have while the second states that there are some arrangements which
concerns the social and economic inequalities.
The first principle is basically about the equalities that people must have. But
even how hard we try; equality is a broad term that would only be an ideology in
this world. It is for the reason that there are too many factors to consider in order to
say that one is equal to another especially is what we are pointing is a human
being. But if we are to think the other way around, we could say that there is
equality on one basis, it is the equality on opportunities. It is the one thing that is
possible for all. The opportunity to do or acquire something is what can all people
could be entitled of. That would now make sense to have equalities in a little way.
The second one is the principle concerning inequalities on social and economic
aspects. These two factors are connected in some ways. An example is riches,
wherein if one is rich, he/she has a high social status. It can be because of authority
or by other means. Thus it really creates inequality. But we should consider that
there is already no equality at the first place in these aspects. The only equality we
have is the one mentioned in the earlier principle. Therefore, in this principle, these
inequalities should be an advantage for all and is attached to positions and offices
for it to become justifiable. Its counterpart is what makes it injustice. Thus, we can
say that justice is giving that is due. That thing which is due is earn not assigned.
That is why we all have equal opportunity even to the attached positions and offices
that creates inequality. It's because we must earn what is due for us. In order to do
so, we should consider the principles specifically to gain definite conclusions that
are beneficial for all.

What I have learned:

16
 • Principles of Justice
• How those principles must be used

Integrative Questions:
• What is Justice?
• What is the First Principle of Justice?
• What is the only thing equal for everyone?
• What is the Second Principle of Justice?
• How should the principles be used in order to have valid conclusions?

Chapter 12: The Need for More than Justice

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

Quote:
"Importance of independence over mutual interdependence"

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the thing we need that is greater than justice.

Review:

This chapter explains how the theory of justice in the point of view of
Immanuel Kant and John Rawls is insufficient for it to be a moral theory by itself.
The author of the reading, Annentte Baier argues that it should be accompanied by
the perspective of care by Carol Gilligan for this theory of justice to become a valid
moral theory.
Baier tells us that the theory of justice may have some deficiency that makes
it invalid as a moral theory. First, it fails to see the inequalities between people.
These are in the form of relationships with them. An example is a parent and
children relationship. Unlike what the principle of justice identifies, this kind of
inequality doesn't fall on the economic and social aspects. Thus, it is not consider
being a source of inequality among people. It's because the inequality identified by
the principle of justice is in terms of people's capability and status. Another is the
unrealistic view of justice. The author may say this because she wants to convey
that reality is composed of many elements including emotional reality that which
justice fails to include. That is why; it has lack of other morality components
especially those that are related. What Baier wants to put in it to make it complete
is the perspective of care. This perspective deals with one's concern for others. With
this it is likely that giving what is due to the person is not only because he earned it
but he deserves it and can be given from the kindness of others. Thus, justice and
care should be joined together in order to create a moral theory that is fitted for all
realities that this world could offer.

17
What I have learned:
• Deficiencies of the perspective of justice
• Perspective of care
• The way how can justice be completed as a moral theory

Integrative Questions:
• What is the argument of the author to the theory of justice?
• What is lacking in the theory of justice?
• What is the theory of care?
• What is considered in the theory of care that doesn't in justice?
• How the theory of justice does become a complete moral theory?

18