Contemporary Moral Problems

+
Copyright Registration Existing
and Proposed Systems
by Argel Cruz

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
Unported License.
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (James Rachels – Egoism and Moral Skepticism), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote: “Ethical Egoism is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is James Rachels
• What is Psychological and Ethical Egoism, and Moral Skepticism

James Rachels is a University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at

Birmingham. He is an author of several books like “The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality”, and many
more. On the following paragraphs I will share my view on psychological and ethical egoism and moral
skepticism. Moving on, psychological egoism is the claim that people always act selfishly, to promote their
own self-interest or happiness. On the other hand, moral skepticism is the diverse collection of views that
deny or raise doubts about various roles of reason in morality. Different versions of moral skepticism deny
or doubt moral knowledge, justified moral belief, moral truth, moral facts or properties, and reasons to be
moral.

Psycholocgical Egosim is also defined as a reflex that every person has to orient themselves
toward their own welfare. Through this, it follows that every one of his (or her) voluntary actions is some
good to himself. If someone gives away the last piece of bread to someone else, it is because they want
to look like a better person, due to the fact that they would give away the last piece of bread. Human
nature is completely and exclusively egoistic. People are entirely selfish and devoid of any genuine
feelings of sympathy, benevolence, or sociability. They are always thinking of themselves in everything
they do. Each individual is preoccupied exclusively with the gratification of personal desires (felicity or
happiness).Ones success in maintaining a continuous flow of gratification is the means of one’s
happiness. Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. We
assume, for example, that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decide
what actions to perform or what rules to obey; we think that we must refrain from acting in ways harmful to
others, and that we must respect their rights and interests as well as our own. We also assume that
people are in fact capable of being motivated by such considerations, that is, that people are not wholly
selfish and that they do sometimes act in the interests of others. James Rachels differentiates between
psychological and ethical egoism and attempts to show that neither is acceptable. In response to the
psychological egoist’s claim that people never act unselfishly, because they always do what they most
want to do, Rachels argues that it is the object of an action (not the subjective want motivating it) that
determines whether that action is selfish or not. If I want other people to grow, and I act on that desire,
then I am acting unselfishly. The satisfaction I may derive is beside the point. That’s basically the point of
Rachels. The ethical egoist argues that, even if it is possible to act unselfishly, there is no reason why we
should. Conceding that no logical refutation of this position is possible Rachels is unwaged by those who
point to its supposed non-universal Rachels argues that human welfare is something most of us value for
its own sake. No further reasons are necessary for performing actions that help and avoiding actions that
hurt others. If the egoist refuses to accept this, that is, if he does not care about the effects of his actions
on others, then philosophical argument has reached the limits of what it can accomplish.

On the other hand, it is also considered as the view of that humans are always motivated by self-
interest; even in what seem to be acts of unselfishness. It claims that, when people choose to help others,
they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or
indirectly, from doing so. It is a non-normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not
how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical
egoism and egoism. Going back, psychological egoism seems to fly in the face of the facts. For me it
means that it is already given and existing in our life. It is a perfect clear example of unselfish behavior.

Page 2 of 47
Integrative Questions:

1. What is Psychological Egoism?

2. What is Ethical Egoism?
3. What is Moral Skepticism?
4. How does the three related to each other?
5. Who is James Rachels?

Lessons Learned:

I learned that psychological egoism is the view of that humans are always motivated by self-
interest; even in what seem to be acts of unselfishness. It claims that, when people choose to help others,
they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or
indirectly, from doing so. I learned that ethical egoism and psychological egoism is neither acceptable
(according to Rachels).

Review Answers:

1. It’s about Gyges, a shepherd who found a ring that enabled him to become invisible. He used his
invisibility to gain wealth and power. The questions raised were “what would rouge and a righteous man
do in if they were in Gyges place?” Glaucon argues that the righteous man would do the same thing that
the rouge did. I think that this is true because power corrupts. We see this in our politicians and in
influential people.

2. Psychological is how people act in order to benefit themselves and ethical is how people would act in
order to benefit themselves.

3. The first argument is about Smith choosing not to go to the country he plans to go to in order to help
his friend in his studies. Based on Psychological egoism Smith is still selfish because he still did what he
wanted which is to help his friend. The second argument is also the same as the first one.

4. Selfishness with self-interest, every action is done either from self-interest or other regarding motives,
and the concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5.”You ought to pursue your interests even if it means destroying Paul.” It is inconsistent because a
person should do what is right for his own self even if it affects other people.

6. Because other people would benefit. The egoist won’t be able to answer and the argument will stop.

Discussion Answers:

1. I think that Rachel’s answer to this question is yes because all throughout the essay he has approved
of being moral.

2. I think that genuine egoists are rare because if not then everybody would be doing whatever they want
whenever they want.

3. I think that it is moral because it will benefit humanity as a whole.

Page 3 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (John Arthur – Religion, Morality, and Conscience), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote: “People are becoming more and more devoid of morals”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is John Arthur
• What is Religion
• What is Morality
• What is Conscience

First of all I would start things by giving a definition to Religion - it is a man’s best way to find
alternatives by which he can rule his time in this earth. Religion has been the biggest influence on human
culture in fundamentally every society known to man. I don’t see why man is so influenced by religion. For
me it is a hindrance in some way. For example, the Muslims, they are prohibited to eat pork because they
believe it is sacred to them. For me it is very absurd to do that. It is also very illogical for me. By the way,
from religion, superstitions are derived, and these, superstitions also cause hindrances to have a better
life. For a concrete example, superstitions like there in taking a picture, that it is bad to take one if there
are three persons in there. I don’t see the point why still people believe this. They even forego a picture
that can be taken in once in a lifetime because of that nonsense superstition. Finding paths by which he
can reach enlightenment. Even so, religion has been around since the dawn of mankind letting each
civilization writes its own book of experiences as to why they have been chosen to live and rule. But in the
beginning religion was also a way for man to explain to himself and therefore rationalize the hows and
whys of nature’s events and by doing so opening a excess of ways by which man could relate itself to
“religion” or gods. It is also the definition of religion is as controversial and complex as religions have
been throughout known human history. The next part of the chapter is when Arthur contrasted morality
and religion. Before going deep to the discussion I would like first to define what morality is. Morality is
defined as "principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics." Within this world that we live on, there is an
enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every
society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This
means that they may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. For a very
long time, morality has been a consistent issue to be discussed with. One question Arthur asked is how
people think and behave without morals and what would the society look like? The solution of this is by
having a moral code. Wherein

People are becoming more and more devoid of morals. Just about all of us have a set of rules
that we live by, a personal list of do’s and don’ts that is based on our own belief system. I have to agree
with that statement because I myself have my do’s and don’ts regardless of what my family or my religion
believes in. For me it is all about believing on what you believe is right, no influence of religion, family,
and etc. These sets of rules are what make us unique and set us apart from the animals. However, now,
more than ever, our society represents one based on a foundation of immorality and principles that are
meaningless. As we look outside our windows, vast amounts of crime, war, and lies is all that can be
seen. I’ll give a concrete example about that. Our generation is now more into pre-marital sex. Every
person I talk to will say that is normal nowadays. I don’t know what triggered this but what know is many
people are realizing that morals are hindrances to their lives. For example, it is stipulated in the bible that
you must not have sex before marriage. Today, many people don’t believe that already. If you will
internalize it, you will find out that it is somehow true. Pre-marital sex is cool indeed. As per movies, it is
now common to have this kind of acts present. There seems to be an abundance of publicists, lobbyists,
marketers, and lawyers who all they want is money, and they do whatever it takes to get it, without any
disregard for anyone or anything that gets in their way. This compromise of morals may soon lead the
world into chaos and disorder. How can one define morality? What is right and wrong? What is good and
evil? It is mankind’s most crucial element. Morality is the basis in which man judges himself. It is a

Page 4 of 47
science; one that stands apart from the rest in that it investigates the way in which a man can reason,
how they should reason, and why they should reason.

Moving on with conscience, it is “social” in the sense that morality is determined by surveying
what others in the society think. But it is understood as the voice of an “assembly” of others within each of
us. Thus conscience cannot be reduced to the expected reaction of any existing individual or group. I
couldn’t agree more on this statement. It purely says that conscience is personal, wherein the action must
not come from anyone’s view but only by one’s self.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Morality?
2. What is Religion?
3. What is Conscience?
4. How does the three related to each other?
5. Who is John Arthur?

Lessons Learned:

I’ve learned that of morals may soon lead the world into chaos and disorder. I concluded that
because each people know enlightened on their purposes in life. I also learned that morality is the basis
in which man judges himself. I also learned that morality is inherently social. Lastly, I learned that religion
can hinder the betterment of life, as per my own opinion.

Discussion Questions:

1. According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different?

Morality is all about what is right from wrong and religion on the other hand is about belief and
doing what you believe is right.

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

Because people who have no religion are also able to do the right thing. Some are driven by
conscience and some are driven by fear but obviously religion is not the only motivation to do the right
thing.

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

Because religion is not a good basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. One reason is
because religion itself is unclear. There are a lot of religions out there and it is hard determine which ones
to follow or is real. Religion also has different interpretations and this is why religion is an unreliable basis
for what is right and what it wrong.

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

According to divine command theory, religion is necessary for morality because without God there could
be no right and wrong. Arthur rejects this theory because, as the definition above stated that God dictates
us what is right from wrong. But the expressions “commanded by God” and “morally required” do not
mean the same. If one thing is not commanded by God it does not automatically immoral.

Page 5 of 47
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
In some way they are connected, but truly, morality and religion are independent from each other.

6. Dewey says that morality is social, what does this mean according to Arthur?
· The existence of morality assumes that we possess a socially required language within which we
think about our choices and which alternatives we ought to follow.
· Morality is social in that it governs relationships among people, defining our responsibilities to
others and theirs to us. Morality provides the standards we rely on in gauging with family, lovers, friends,
fellow citizens and even strangers.
· Morality is social in the sense that we are, in fact, subject to criticisms by others of our actions. We
discuss with others what we do, and often hear them concerning whether our decisions were acceptable.
· Idea depends on appreciating the fact that to think from the moral view point.

Page 6 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Friedrich Nietzsche – Master and Slave Morality), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote: “Particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Friedrich Nietzsche
• What is Master and Slave Morality
• What is Morality

Friedrich Nietzsche believed that Christianity, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution,
democracy and the equal coexistence in power and strength of humans was leading to society’s decay
and the rampant acceptance of slave morality. Nietzsche was an advocate of master morality, in which
case a strong, ruling class would dominate in a society over the masses in order for humankind to
flourish. There have been claims made that the idea of master morality was what inspired Hitler and his
Nazi regime, but arguments can be made, using themes from Beyond Good and Evil, that Nietzsche in no
way was alluding to such a rule as Hitler’s. To be able to discuss this topic further, one must have a grasp
on what Nietzsche is talking about when he refers to slave or master morality. Master morality is so
named because it was created by the ruling class, and it essentially considers strength, power, and
bravery to be “good”. The “good” was created out of an affirmation and pride of their own power and
honor. Additional attributes of those bearing the stamp of master morality are having a hard heart, being
egotistical, intolerant and of distinguished origin.

With the help of Wikipedia, I found out that master-slave morality is the central theme of Friedrich
Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that
there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Master morality
weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a
scale of good or evil intentions. What Nietzsche meant by 'morality' deviates from common understanding
of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture.
This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the
struggle between these two types of moral valuation. For Nietzsche, master-slave morality provides the
basis of all exegesis of Western thought. Moving on to Nietzsche’s concept of master morality, it is the
morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. Morality as
such is sentiment. In the prehistoric state, the value or non-value of an action was derived from its
consequences but ultimately, there are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of
phenomena. For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is
the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Morality is designed to
protect that which the strong-willed man values, and for slave and master, Fear is the mother of morality.
Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness,
trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous
idea of the good, and then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. The noble type of man
experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, what is harmful to me is
harmful in itself; it knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; it is value-creating. In this
sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as
something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-
willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-
morality with their slave-morality.

Moving on slave morality, unlike master morality which is emotion, slave morality is literally re-
sentiment - revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on
consequences to the valuation of actions based on intention. As master morality originates in the strong,
slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its
oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism
and skepticism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave

Page 7 of 47
morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to
:
transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility the good
is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction, and
how could there exist a 'common good'. The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has
ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for the great,
abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies, for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.
Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by
corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery are evil, and the qualities they originally
could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids
admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of
turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave
onto all mankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. The democratic movement inherits the
Christian. The political manifestation of slave morality results to its obsession with freedom and equality.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Morality?
2. What is Master-Slave Morality?
3. What is the difference between the two?
4. What is the central theme of the author?
5. Who is John Arthur?

Lessons Learned:

I learned that master morality is the morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful;
what is bad is what is harmful. Morality as such is sentiment. On the other hand I learned that slave
morality is the literal re-sentiment it revaluates which the master values. This strays from the valuation of
actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on intention.

Review Questions

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

A good and healthy society according to Nietzsche allows people who have the ability to grab power to do
so.

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

He thinks that these attributes are needed in order to form a healthy society.

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

Master-morality emphasizes power while slave-morality emphasizes weakness.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

Will of Power is a person’s will to achieve power by any and all means necessary.

Discussion Questions

Page 8 of 47
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?

I think that their charges are justified. This is because Nietzsche encourages elite people to grab power
and when people are able to do something they tend to do it by any and all means necessary. Nietzsche
didn’t also say how these powerful people should use the power they acquired so these elites can either
use their power for good or bad which is still dangerous in my opinion.

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

“What is injurious to me is injurious in itself; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on
things; he is a creator of values.”

Page 9 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Mary Midgley – Trying Out One’s New Sword), Contemporary Moral
Problems by James E. White
Quote: “Cross-roads cut”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Mary Midgley
• What is Moral Isolationism
• Does it exist or even proven

Mary Midgley taught philosophy at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England for twenty
years and is now retired. She has been made famous because of the books she wrote like “Animals and
Why They Matter”, “Science and Poetry”, and many more. She attacks on the concept of moral
isolationism. It is the view of anthropologists and others that cannot criticize cultures that humans don’t
understand. For example the older Japanese culture that had the practice of trying out a new samurai
sword on a chance wayfarer. Midgley argues that moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of
immoralism because it forbids any moral reasonings. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are
separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in face formed out of many influences. I am agreeing
on what Mary points. As for my example the Filipino culture is formed out of many influences, like from
the Americans, the Japanese and the Spaniards. So if I am going to be asked, I will also attack moral
isolationism because of course morals shouldn’t be isolated. It should continue to be free otherwise it
could turn into something “not good”.

Midgley’s definition of moral isolationism is the following, in consists in simply denying that we
can ever understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it. One of the
reasons that she argues that this is an untenable position is that if we cannot sufficiently understand
another culture to criticize them, we would not be able to praise them either. If tomorrow, China turned
from a Communist country to a Democratic one, we would want to praise them for making the right
choice. However, if one holds that we cannot criticize cultures that hold to different values because we
don’t have sufficient understanding of them, it would then be inconsistent to be able to praise other
cultures as well. Midgley’s example of an aspect of a different society that we would praise is some of the
virtues held by Samurais. Her point is however the same. She takes the idea that we cannot praise other
cultures for a set of values as absurd. Hence, moral isolationism results in an absurd consequence that
should cause it to be rejected. Her second point against moral isolationism is that if we are not able to
make moral judgments about other societies, we are not able to make them about our own either. She
explains how moral judgment is void if moral isolationism is true. Our opinions of other societies being
good or bad are necessary in order to state an opinion concerning our own. These opposing ideas form a
range of comparison which allows us to say whether we should or should not be like them. One example
is how the Samurais used to test their battle swords on random commoners in order to insure that the
sword was correctly sharpened. If we didn’t come to the conclusion that this practice was unjust, then
how could we come to the conclusion that we should perform this practice in our society? The only way to
learn from other society’s mistakes or successes is to be able to form moral judgments about them. In this
sense, Midgley says how moral judgment is not something we can discard. It is necessary if we are to
learn from other’s mistakes. If moral isolationism was true, we would not be able to learn from other
culture’s mistakes or successes. Since we can learn from other country’s mistakes, moral isolationism is
false. The first of Midgley’s assumptions is that moral judgment is necessary. When we judge something
as good, we are saying that there is reason to pursue it. It is the same way with judging something as
bad; we are stating that there is reason to avoid it. Her second assumption is needed for her first point
against moral isolationism to hold. That being that we can understand a culture enough to praise them.
For her second point against moral isolationism to hold, she must assume that moral reasoning in general
is justified. She assumes that it is plausible to say that certain acts are right or wrong. Her last assumption
can be illuminated by asking the question, “What does it mean to be ‘of’ a certain society? And
conversely, what does it mean for one to be an outsider?”

Page 10 of 47
Integrative Questions:

1. What is the concept of this chapter?

2. What is relation of Samurais to the title of the chapter?
3. What is the moral isolationism?
4. What is the central theme of the author?
5. Who is Mary Midgley?

Lessons Learned:

I’ve learned that this concept is not widely accepted, instead it is still questioned if it is valid or
really existing. But as for my own opinion, I am agreeing with her thoughts. I do believe that before
someone is considered as “in” a society, he/she must first have to stay there for years.

Review Questions

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

Moral isolationism is the view that people should not morally criticize cultures that they do not understand.

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

Tsujigiri or crosscut is practiced by the Japanese samurais. They test new swords on wayfarers. It is
important to the samurais that their sword must be able to slice through someone in a single swing,
passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly, the samurai would lose
his Honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his ancestors.

Midgley asks how people from western cultures morally criticize the Japanese when they also have
savage practices of their own like human experimentation.

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

Moral isolationism stops us in criticizing others customs and this includes the ones that are really
destructive in nature.

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

The basis for criticizing other culture is to prove it that it destroys the general moral teachings.

Discussion Questions

1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche?
Why or why not?

No because he encourages moral reasoning.

2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain
your answer.

Yes because racial discrimination is present in all cultures and sectors of society.

Page 11 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism), Contemporary Moral Problems by
James E. White

Quote: “Utilitarianism is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively
and of course with the majority.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is John Stuart Mill
• What is Utilitarianism

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill is an influential
British Philosopher. He wrote several books about ethics, morality and philosophy. In his essay the main
topic was utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by
its contribution to overall utility that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all
persons. Basically it is the action with the greatest good for the majority. This is the ethical theory that I
agree with. I think that the right thing to do is the one that would benefit the majority. Utilitarianism is also
about actions which would bring happiness to the majority. Another interesting topic discussed in this
essay is of what sort of proof the Principal of Utility us susceptible. Mill argues that the only proof that
something is desirable is that people actually desire it. It is a fact that happiness is a good, because all
people desire their own happiness. Thus, it is clear that happiness is at least one end, and one criterion,
of morality. However, in order to show that happiness is the sole criterion for morality, it is necessary to
show that people never desire anything but happiness. Mill says that people do desire things like virtue,
which in common language is distinguished from happiness.

Lessons Learned:

I learned what Utilitarianism is and how it has become a basis for determining whether and action
is ethical or not. I also learned what sort of proof the Principle of Utility is susceptible.

Integrative Question:

1. What is Utilitarianism?
2. What is the Greatest Happiness Principle?
3. What causes happiness?
4. What is a utilitarian standard?
5. What is the Principle of Utility?

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.

Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle, says that the ultimate end, with reference to and
for the sake of which all other things are desirable, whether we are considering our own good or that of
other people, is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible from
enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality. Actions that have negative consequences does not bring
happiness to the doer.

2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of a swine?

Page 12 of 47
Mill said that if the sources of pleasure of a human being and a swine are the same, the rule of life which
is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other.

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

According to Mill a being of higher type requires more to make him happy than an inferior type. The
higher being can sustain more suffering than the inferior type.

4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

The happiness of the majority must be considered.

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

According to Mill:
Happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable
as means to that end. An object is visible is that people actually see it, and so of the other sources of
our experience.

Page 13 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (James Rachels – The Debate over Utilitarianism), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote: "If I have seen that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among the many in my
society, and my interests are no more important, from the point of view of the whole, than the similar
interests of others within my society, I am ready to see that, from a still larger point of view, my society is
just one among other societies, and the interests of members of my society are no more important, from
that larger perspective, than the similar interests of members of other societies”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is James Rachels
• What is Utilitarianism at the first place

James Rachels is a University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at

Birmingham. He is an author of several books like “The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality”, and many
more. On the following paragraphs I will share my view on psychological and ethical egoism and moral
skepticism. Moving on, psychological egoism is the claim that people always act selfishly, to promote their
own self-interest or happiness. On the other hand, moral skepticism is the diverse collection of views that
deny or raise doubts about various roles of reason in morality. Different versions of moral skepticism deny
or doubt moral knowledge, justified moral belief, moral truth, moral facts or properties, and reasons to be
moral.

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of James Rachels. James Rachels is a University
Professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He authored three significant books about
morality. I think that with James Rachel’s background he would be able to share a lot of interesting
theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being
ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important
theories and insights about ethics. James Rachels objected to the ideas of utilitarianism based on three
propositions. The first proposition is about judging whether an action is right or wrong based their
consequences. Basically it is like choosing the lesser evil. James Rachels argued that this is not entirely
correct because commons sense is used in choosing right and wrong with Utilitarianism and common
sense cannot fully be trusted. It cannot be trusted because what is right in common sense is based on
merit and not what is entirely right. The second proposition is about happiness. The right action is the one
that creates more happiness then misery. James Rachels argues that this is wrong because the right
thing to do is not the one that causes happiness but the one that causes less suffering. The third
proposition is about consequences. According to utilitarianism the right action is the one that has less
negative consequences. James Rachels argues that this proposition is flawed because it is not
compatible with justice. An action can have less negative consequence to the doer but it can cause
damage to other people.
What I learned:

I learned that Utilitarianism is flawed in many ways. I thought that Utilitarianism is the best ethical
theory but in actuality it is as flawed as the other ethical theories.

Integrative questions:

1. What is classical Utilitarianism?

2. What is Hedonism?
3. What is the most serious anti utilitarianism attack in this theory?
4. What does Utilitarianism say about happiness?
5. What is Rule-Utilitarianism?

Page 14 of 47
Review Questions

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

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

2. In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness
that caused.

3. In calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused , no one’s happiness is to be counted

as more important than anyone else.

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

Hedonism is a view that pleasure is happiness.

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

The objection for justice, rights, and promises is that these three were not underrepresented.

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

Rule Utilitarianism is actions conform in to the rules that will lead to greater good. Act
Utilitarianism on the other hand states that the right action is one that will give happiness to a person.

5. What is the third line of defense?

Act-Utilitarianism

Discussion Questions

1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism.
Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

No because our moral beliefs are the ones that will bring us true happiness.

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?

They must consider everyone who is unaware of utilitarianism.

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

Yes.

Page 15 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Immanuel Kant – The Categorical Imerative), Contemporary Moral
Problems by James E. White
Quote: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Immanuel Kant
• What is The Categorical Imperative

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant is a
German who was one of the most important Philosophers of all time. He contributed to all areas of
Philosophy and wrote many significant books in the areas of Philosophy and reasoning. I think that with
Immanuel Kant’s background he would be able to share a lot of interesting theories and insights about
ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a
person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about
ethics. The main topic in his essay was about The Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative
according to Immanuel Kant is a supreme rule where our moral duties can be derived. Immanuel Kant
expressed great disapproval with Utilitarianism and this is why he devised the Categorical Imperative
which according to him will correct the shortcomings of Utilitarianism. Categorical Imperative allows
people to act based on what is right for ourselves and for others. Kant argues that the highest form of
good is good will. To have good will is to perform one’s duty. To do one’s duty is to perform actions which
are morally required and to avoid those actions which are morally forbidden. Kant said that we should
perform our duty because it is our duty and for no other reason. To perform an action out of desire for any
self indulgent consequences is not a morally good action. Duty is good in itself. Kant believed that we
should act out of duty and not emotion. A human action isn’t morally good because we feel it’s good, or
because it is in our own self interest. Even if duty demanded the same action, but it was done for a motive
such as compassion, the act would be a good act, but the person would not be moral for choosing it.

Lessons Learned:

What I learned in this chapter is that the Categorical Imperative is an impressive ethical theory. it
has reduced or even eliminated some conflicts bought upon by determining what is right and what is
wrong.

Integrative Question:
1. What is The Categorical Imperative?
2. Who is Immanuel Kant?
3. What is the Universal law?
4. What are some of the duties derived from the Categorical Imperative?
5. What are the consequences of happiness?

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

It is universally good.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical imperative requires a certain action is a given situation. A categorical imperative you should
do your duties.

Page 16 of 47
3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain
how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law."
He uses it as a universal law where good duties can be derived.

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

“The end justifies the mean”

This means that the actions you have taken will be judged by the results it caused.

Page 17 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Aristotle – Happiness and Virtue), Contemporary Moral Problems
by James E. White
Quote: “Virtues leads to happiness.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Aristotle
• What is Happiness and Virtue

Aristotle believed virtues led to happiness. The happiness that Aristotle spoke of was not
necessarily the same that we would think of today. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonic. We
want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead. So we see a night out or a pleasant
activity as a route to happiness. The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness.
Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness. Eudaimonia is
not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by
living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you
that you can be. Aristotle thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of
being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation. For
example, courage would be the balance and moderation between excessive amounts, rashness and
insufficient amounts, cowardice. Generosity would be the mid-ground between being a wasteful
spendthrift and being a miser.He strongly disagreed with Socrates who knowledge would automatically
lead to the right action. Aristotle argued that the greatest misdeed was to know the right course, but fail to
do it.

So for him it was the act of living in balance and moderation that brought the highest pleasure. Not in the
action itself, but in the way of life. It is this way of life that would lead to the greatest long-term value
rather than just a passing amusement. A modern illustration would be the difference between earning a
high income, but spending it all and living in more moderation and having great wealth that will last you
and provide security.

It was Aristotle’s belief that by achieving these virtues, happiness would result. So for him contemplation
was the highest activity humans could do. Contemplation is the activity that refines and discovers virtues.
Carried out continuously it allows you to reach your potential.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is happiness?
2. What is Virtue?
3. How does Aristotle portray the virtue of courage?
4. How must we describe virtue?
5. How do we acquire happiness?

Lessons Learned:

I was able to learn what Aristotle’s perception of Happiness Virtue is.

Page 18 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Joel Feinberg– The Nature and Value of Rights), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote:”The idea of desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginnings by now”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Joel Feinberg
• What is the Nature and Value of Rights

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Joel Feinberg. Joel Feinberg is a
professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona. He authored several significant books concerning
philosophy and human behavior. I think that having this background he would be able to share a lot of
interesting theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for
something being ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share
some important theories and insights about ethics. In this essay Joel Feinberg wants to demonstrate or
show how important rights are in connection with morality. Without rights people will be deprived of
freedom and voice out their concerns. If they are unable to do this they will be deprived of justice and
without all these freedoms people will become miserable. I also found Joel Feinberg’s example really
interesting. He described a town called Nowheresville and in this town people have no rights. He
described Nowheresville as having pretty and virtuous people and a friendly environment. The only thing
missing in this town is rights. He used this example to criticize Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

What I learned:

I learned the importance of rights in a society. Without rights people will be deprived of freedom to
voice out their concerns and will be stripped of their dignity.

Integrative Questions:
1. What is Nowheresville?
2. Who is Joel Feinberg?
3. How do dictionaries define “claim”?
4. What is Leviathan?
5. What is “three-to-marry?”

1. Describe Nowheresville. How this world different from our world?

Nowheresville is a world like our own the only difference is that it has no rights.

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this
doctrine?

His answer is yes and in a sense no.

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

Personal Desert means when a person deserves something good from us what is meant in parts is that
there would be a certain proprietary in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of the kind of person he
is.

Page 19 of 47
4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to
Feinberg?

The sovereign rights of the people will be controlled by the government.

5. What are claim rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the
right-holder. I think it is morally important because it enables us to do the right thing and attain true
happiness.

Page 20 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Ronald Dworkin– Taking Rights Seriously), Contemporary Moral
Problems by James E. White
Quote: “The law of a community is a set of special rules used to determine which behavior will be
punished.”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Ronald Dworkin
• What is Taking Rights Seriously

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Ronald Dworkin. Ronald Dowrkin is a
University professor at Jurisprudence, Oxford University, and professor of Law at New York University. I
think that having this background he would be able to share a lot of interesting theories and insights about
ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a
person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about
ethics. Ronald Dworkin argued that it is wrong for people to interfere with the rights of other people. I
agree with Ronald Dworkin on this, I think that it is really immoral for a person to interfere with another
person’s rights. We can see its effects on nations that have taken the rights of its people. The result is
chaos, insurrection, rebellion, and unrest. Governments must respect the rights of the people in order for
them to have a stable and strong nation. Ronald Dwokin also condemned governments treating people
who have committed civil disobedience harshly. If governments treat their people with respect and
integrity it would be much easier to govern the nation. Silencing free speech is never the answer to
solving political unrest. I think that this is true because by silencing the people their anger will only build
up more and more and there will come a time when all this anger will be put on display and it would be
disastrous for the nation.

What I’ve learned:

Taking the rights of the people is never a solution to solving political unrest and chaos. We need
to take the rights of the people seriously.

Integrative Questions:
1. What issues does the constitution fuse?
2. What is the Kantian idea?
3. When does a government have its most natural use?
4. Do Constitutional rights represent moral rights against the government? Why?
5. Why do we need to take rights seriously?

1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the
USA Constitution?

“If a people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.”
Some rights protected by what Dworkin said are the right of free speech and the right to assemble.

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 right is the right of a citizen protected by a constitution. Moral right is right of a person according to
his morality and conscience. Not all legal rights, or even constitutional rights, represent moral rights
against the government. An example that I can give is death penalty. In some countries it is legal but we
all know that it is morally wrong.

Page 21 of 47
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does
Dworkin find more attractive?

The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the individual and the demands of
society. The second one is that the government inflates a right. Dworkin finds the second model more
attractive.

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

Majority and the minority.

Page 22 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (John Rawls A - Theory of Justice), Contemporary Moral Problems
by James E. White
Quote: "No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his
fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even
assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological
propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is John Rawls
• What is the Theory of Justice

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of John Rawls. John Rawls is a professor
of philosophy at Harvard University. He authored several significant books about the Law and Justice. I
think that having this background he would be able to share a lot of interesting theories and insights about
ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a
person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about
ethics. In Rawls’s theory there are two principles of justice; one is about equal basic liberties and the
other is about the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. I think that tackling these two issues
about justice is a good thing. There are a lot of injustices today concerning the people’s lack of basic
liberties and inequalities in the justice system. Basically what John Rawls is proposing is to give everyone
equal access to the basic judicial services of the government and treat everyone as equals. I think that by
doing this people have more rights because they are granted basic services by the government. A lot of
nations deprive the little people of justice which results in lots of unjust imprisonments. Corruption will
also be lessened since the criminal justice system is treating the people as equals. With a more efficient
justice system determining what is ethical and what is not will be a little bit easier.

What I learned:

I was able to understand more the importance of an effective judicial system.

Integrative Questions:
st
1. What is the 1 principle of justice?
nd
2. What is the 2 principle of justice?
3. Where does fairness begin?
4. Why is Justice as fairness not a complete contract theory?
5. What are the consequences of the two principles of justice?

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.

Rawls describes an “original position”, in which representatives with limited information about the interests
that they represent attempt to agree as to how society should be ordered.

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

Rawls’s first principle of justice suggests that equal liberties be given.

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

The second principle involves economic inequalities.

Page 23 of 47
Discussion Questions:

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.

It allows basic liberties to be served to everyone.

Page 24 of 47
Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Annette Baier – The Need for More Than Justice), Contemporary
Moral Problems by James E. White
Quote: “The cold jealous virtue of justice”

Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Annette Baier
• What is the need more than Justice

Annette Baier is a teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. She authored several
significant books about morality and ethics. I think that having this background he would be able to share
a lot of interesting theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis
for something being ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to
share some important theories and insights about ethics. What Annette Baier is suggesting that the
government takes care of the people. Annette thinks that if the government is taking care of its people
then the need for justice to be served will be lessen. People who do criminal activities will be lessened
because there won’t be a need for them to do so. Governments must take care of the weak because
without their care those people are the ones who will be committing crime and as a result there will be
more pressure on the judicial system and it will be less effective.

Integrative Questions:
1. Who is Annette Baier?
2. Who influenced Kohlberg?
3. Who developed the Kantian philosophical tradition?
4. Why did Kantian framework dominate the Western moral theory?
5. What is an alternative to the Kantian justice perspective?

Review Questions:

1. If the government takes care of the people there will be less pressure on the judicial system.
2. Are planes of moral adequacy conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral
reasoning?
3.
4. Because it is flawed.

Discussion Questions:

1. It means that the past theories like that of Immanuel Kant’s are obsolete. We are now becoming more
and more mature.
2. What’s wrong with it is that it extends rights to people who don’t fully understand these rights. They
tend to abuse these rights as an effect.
3. I think that it is important. Freedom of choice allows us to truly choose doing good and doing bad.

Lessons Learned:

I learned that care is somewhat more important than justice.

Page 25 of 47
Official Receipt of Registration of Copyright

Page 26 of 47
Analysis of the Existing Copyright Registration System

Use Case Diagram

Page 27 of 47
Use Case Narratives

Identification Summary

Title: Fill-up Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s first step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have the requirements before getting an application form.

Main Success Scenario

th
1. The applicant will get an application form at the 5 floor of the National Library.
2. The applicant must complete all the necessary fields.

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant filled up the wrong application form.

2. The applicant does not have the requirements.
1. The sales personnel paid a wrong amount

Error Sequences

1. The applicant does not have the requirements.

Post Conditions:

1. The applicant successfully filled up the application form with complete details.

Page 28 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Notarize Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s second step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Attorney

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have the application form with complete details.

Main Success Scenario

1. The applicant will submit the application form and pay to an attorney to get it
notarized.
2. The Attorney will now notarize the application form.
3. The Attorney will now give back the application form.

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant filled up the wrong application form.

2. The applicant failed to find an attorney.
3. The sales personnel paid a wrong amount

Error Sequences

1. The attorney rejected the applicant’s application form.

Post Conditions:

1. The applicant successfully notarized the application form.

Page 29 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Pay Copyrighting Fee

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s third step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Cashier

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have the application form with complete details and notarized.

Main Success Scenario

1. The applicant will pay for the copyright registration fee.

2. The Cashier will give the official receipt.

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant has insufficient money.

2. The applicant failed to submit the application form.
3. The sales personnel paid for a wrong application form.

Error Sequences

1. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully paid for the copyright registration.

Page 30 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Pay Stamp

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s fourth step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Stamp Officer

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have paid for the copyright registration.

Main Success Scenario

1. The applicant will pay for the stamps.

2. The Stamp Officer will give the official receipt and the stamps.

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant has insufficient money.

2. The applicant failed to present the official receipt from the copyright registration.

Error Sequences

1. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully paid for the stamps.

Page 31 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Submit Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s fifth and final step in
applying for registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Collecting Officer

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have paid for the copyright registration and stamps.

Main Success Scenario

1. The applicant will submit the application form

2. The Collecting Officer will verify the official receipts.
3. If validated, the Collecting Officer will return the official receipts.

Alternative Sequences:

1. The applicant has incomplete requirements.

2. The applicant failed to present the official receipts.

Error Sequences

1. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully submitted the application form.

Page 32 of 47
Activity Diagrams

Activity Diagram of Fill-up Application Form

Applicant

Get Application Form

Fill-up application form

Page 33 of 47
Activity Diagram of Pay Copyrighting Fee

Page 34 of 47
Activity Diagram of Notarize Application Form

Page 35 of 47
Activity Diagram of Pay Stamps

Page 36 of 47
Activity Diagram of Submit Application Form

Page 37 of 47
Analysis of the Proposed Copyright Registration System

Use Case Diagram

Copyright Registration System

Fill-up
Application Form Attorney

Notarize
Application Form

Cashier
Pay Stamps and
Copyrighting Fee

Applicant
Submit Application
Form

Collecting Officer

Page 38 of 47
Use Case Narratives

Identification Summary

Title: Fill-up Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s first step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

2. The applicant should have the requirements before getting an application form.

Main Success Scenario

th
3. The applicant will get an application form at the 5 floor of the National Library.
4. The applicant must complete all the necessary fields.

Alternative Sequences:

3. The applicant filled up the wrong application form.

4. The applicant does not have the requirements.
2. The sales personnel paid a wrong amount

Error Sequences

2. The applicant does not have the requirements.

Post Conditions:

2. The applicant successfully filled up the application form with complete details.

Page 39 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Notarize Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s second step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Attorney

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have the application form with complete details.

Main Success Scenario

4. The applicant will submit the application form and pay to an attorney to get it
notarized.
5. The Attorney will now notarize the application form.
6. The Attorney will now give back the application form.

Alternative Sequences:

3. The applicant filled up the wrong application form.

4. The applicant failed to find an attorney.
4. The sales personnel paid a wrong amount

Error Sequences

2. The attorney rejected the applicant’s application form.

Post Conditions:

1. The applicant successfully notarized the application form.

Page 40 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Pay Stamps and Copyrighting Fee

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s third step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Cashier

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have the application form with complete details and notarized.

Main Success Scenario

1. The applicant will pay for the copyright registration fee.

2. The applicant will pay for the stamps.
3. The Cashier will give the official receipt.

Alternative Sequences:

3. The applicant has insufficient money.

4. The applicant failed to submit the application form.
4. The sales personnel paid for a wrong application form.

Error Sequences

2. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully paid for the copyright registration.

Page 41 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Pay Stamp

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s fourth step in applying for
registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Stamp Officer

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have paid for the copyright registration.

Main Success Scenario

3. The applicant will pay for the stamps.

4. The Stamp Officer will give the official receipt and the stamps.

Alternative Sequences:

3. The applicant has insufficient money.

4. The applicant failed to present the official receipt from the copyright registration.

Error Sequences

1. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully paid for the stamps.

Page 42 of 47
Identification Summary

Title: Submit Application Form

Summary: This use case shows the process of the applicant’s fifth and final step in
applying for registration of copyright.

Actors: Applicant, Collecting Officer

Creation date: February 27, 2009

Version: 1.0

Person in charge: Argel T. Cruz

Flow of events

Preconditions:

1. The applicant should have paid for the copyright registration and stamps.

Main Success Scenario

4. The applicant will submit the application form

5. The Collecting Officer will verify the official receipts.
6. If validated, the Collecting Officer will return the official receipts.

Alternative Sequences:

3. The applicant has incomplete requirements.

4. The applicant failed to present the official receipts.

Error Sequences

1. The applicant didn’t pay the fee resulting into the voiding of the application form.

Post Conditions:

The applicant successfully submitted the application form.

Page 43 of 47
Activity Diagrams

Activity Diagram of Fill-up Application Form

Applicant

Get Application Form

Fill-up application form

Page 44 of 47
Activity Diagram of Pay Stamps and Copyrighting Fee

Page 45 of 47
Activity Diagram of Notarize Application Form

Page 46 of 47
Activity Diagram of Submit Application Form

Page 47 of 47