Sherwin E.

Valdez
ITETHIC
Mr. Pajo

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter 1: James Rachels – Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Quote:

“The moral institution of our life is very different than what we normally think. The majority
of mankind is grossly deceived about what is, or ought to be, the case, where morals are
concerned”

What I expected to learn:

In this chapter James Rachels discuss how’s important the ethical theories for us. James
Rachels is a professor at university of Alabama Birmingham. For what james Rachels do in this
chapter is that he want to share his knowledge about ethical theories, also his insights and how
ethical theories help the values of people. James Rachels already have three significant books
about morality based on him ethical theories were divided into five types namely: theory of the
right, theory of the good, virtue theory. Each and everyone already hear the words “ego” but I
don’t know the true meaning of “ego”, as I read this chapter I find that egoism is considering
oneself before the others it is like a defending your self to other. Even though it sound so bad but
for me it’s quite good because nobody can help your self you are only what if all them is in your
position do you think there’s a people will help you just what you did before? For me in this time
you need to be more practical so that no one can blame you.

What I learned:

I’ve learned the different types of ethical theories and also what egoism is and how it can
help and what its part in the ethics.

Integrative questions

1) What is ethical egoism?

2) What is psychological scepticism?
3) Egoism is bad or good?
4) What is psychological egoism?
5) Can ego affect our ethics?

Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
- Gyges found the ring of invisibility he used that ring to gain wealth and
power.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

- Psychological egoism is how’s people act to their own interested while ethical
egoism is how people is ought to be self interested.
 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these
arguments, and how does he reply to them?

- Based on Rachels both arguments are false he wanted to proof that in all the
people that are the reason why he wants to change ethical theories.

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

psychological egoism?

- Selfishness and self-interest can affect any genuine concern for the welfare of
others.

5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t
Rachels accept this argument?

- He tried to proof to people that the different between the two different types of
egoism.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others?
How can the egoist reply?

- Because based on egoist other people will benefit for that.

Discussion Questions:

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

- Based on what I’ve understand in the essay from the start to the end he has
approved being moral.

2. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about
others even people they don’t know?

- I think it is rare because if it is not, people will whatever they want.

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the
benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

- For me it is moral because it can be benefit us.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter 1: John Arthur – Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Quote: “Morality is a virtue”

What I expected to learn:

I want to learn what is the important of religion.

Review:

John Arthur is a professor and director of the program in Philosophy, Law, and Politics in
Binghamton University. In this chapter John Arthur trying to shared some knowledge and
interesting insight about morality and religion. As John Arthur is a good professor in Binghamton I
trusted him. Many people now believe that the Religion will motivate the people to do good but
based on John Arthur people doing right thing because they were raised to do good and being
afraid about the consequences. I agree to what John Arthur beliefs because it is not in your
religion it is how you make an actions based on your beliefs it is not is don’t believe in Catholic
but because even other religion can do good even the people don’t have religion. In this chapter I
realize that we have all different morality and we all have different beliefs because of different
upbringing. John Arthur says that Religion is not the basis to do right and wrong. For me it is hard
to determine of what is the real religion because they have different belief even they are all
religion right?

What I learned:

I’ve learned that not the religion will make me do right but I make right because I’m afraid
of what is the consequence of that.

Integrative Questions:

1) What is the essence of religion?

2) What is the role of religion in the Ethics?
3) What is the true Religion?
4) Why there are different beliefs even they are all Religions?
5) What do we need to as people?

Review Questions:

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

- Religion is how you believe of what is right and wrong while morality is your basis
to do right and wrong.

2. Why is religion necessary for moral motivation?

- People will do right because they have a fear of what is the consequence of their
do.

3. Why is religion necessary for moral motivation?

- Because the religion itself is unclear and why we have many religion if we all
same people.

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

- Divine Command theory believes in God because based in this chapter without
God there is no good and bad.
 5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

- They are independent to each other.

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

- According to Arthur Morality and Religon is connected to each other and same
have impact to the people.

Discussion Questions:

2. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
- He didn’t discuss the divine command theory because he only discusses the
concept of command theory.

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman
animals?

- By caring them like people.

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

- Moral education is learning to what is bad and good. A college ethics class count
as moral education because we study and try to realize the importance of studying
morality.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter 1: Friedrich Nietzche – Master and Slave Morality

Quote:

“Corruption as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts,
that the foundation of the emotions, and called life is convulsed.”

What I expect to learn:

To know what is the knowledge of Friedrich Nietzche about morality.

Review:

Friedrich nietzche is a German Poet and Philosopher. He is famous because of the

inspirational text books he do some example of his beautiful works are The Birth of Tragedy, The
Gay Science, and Thus Spake Zarathustra. In this chapter Friedrich Nietzche the master and
slave morality is already a good and famous author that’s the reason why for me I can believe to
his knowledge and some inspirational insight that somehow a lesson for other people. For me I
can compare this subchapter by Friedrich Nietzche of what happen in the Filipinos in the era of
Spanish and the Japanese. That time many people are slave even in their own country they are
like a robot’s that control by their master what should do and what to do. I’m very happy that I’m
not already born that time because as I study that when I was elementary and high school I feel
very angry to the Spanish and Japanese. I don’t agree of what Friedrich Nietzche sight to healthy
society because they were all practice our will of power but in the good motives unlike what
Nietzche taught that a healthy society will make the people ability to grab power.

What I learned:

I learned in this chapter that a people will practice their own will of power to able to have
a healthy society.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the difference between the slave and master?

2. What is slave morality?
3. Why there are slave and master?
4. What is mater morality?
5. Why other people make use of power to make corruption?

Review Questions:

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

- Nietzche taught that a good and healthy society can be the way of
grabbing power.

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

- For him injury, violence and exploitation are needed to have a healthy
society.

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

- Master morality is the strength while slave morality is the weakness.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

- will of power is the will of a person to pursue power.

Discussion Questions:

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?

- It was justified because reading this chapter makes you realize how he is
veteran in terms in achieving power.

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

- “A creator of value” for me is the people who have a lot of knowledge in
Ethics and also by doing good values.
-

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter1: Mary Midgley – Trying Out one’s New Sword

Quote:

“Trying out one’s new sword”

What I expect to learn:

To know what is the meaning of trying out one’s new sword.

Review:

In this part of chapter Mary Midgley shared some essay about morality. Mary Midgley is
one of the famous people in the world because she has books about human nature, morality and
philosophy that can be also the reason of believing on her interesting insights and knowledge that
can a lesson for others. Before anything else Mary Midgley taught a Philosophy subject at the
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England for over 20 years. She’s a good professor as her
student says because when she talks it’s very professional and when she tackle some topic it
marks in the student because she have a lot of stories and she was able to have an debate
between her student. I agree with Mary Midgley, that people should not justify the other cultures
because there is no such reason of doing that. Just like the samurai needs to cut a wayfarer with
his sword in order to try it out and defend his honor for other it is too bad because imagine you
need to kill people for your honor only but just like what I said before if we don’t understand why
that’s they do that we don’t have a right to justify that.

What I learned:

I learned that it’s bad to justify other cultures if we don’t understand why they are doing
that.
Integrative Questions:

1) Why there are different cultures?

2) What is the meaning of isolationism?
3) What is tsujigiri?
4) How isolationisms can affects our personality?
5) What is the purpose of cultures in our livings?

Review Questions:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

- Moral isolationism is the view of the people that you can never justify
other cultures.

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

- Tsujigiri is a culture of Japanese where in the Samrai if they have new

sword they need to test it in wayferers to insure that they sword can slice
someone in just one swing.

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

- based on Midgley isolationism wrong in the way that it can affects the
beliefs of one people.

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

- We can’t criticize other culture if we are not part of them.

Discussion Questions:

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

- Yes, because they have different point of view.

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

- Yes, because as of now we have a discrimination right?

 Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism

Quote:

“By happiness are intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain,
and the privation of pleasure”.

What I expect to learn:

To learned the utilitarianism.

Review:

In this subchapter of the chapter one of contemporary moral Problems John Stuart Mill
sets forth the basic principles of utilitarianism, including the principle of Utility for the greatest
Happiness principle and the hedonistic principle that happiness is pleasure. John Stuart Mill was
one of the most important and influential British philosophers. He has already readings about
Utilitarianism and the works in ethics are on Liberty. Utilitarianism is like a person controlling
another person with the use of power. In this chapter I remember my crush when I was on
elementary because all she want food, drinks, chocolate and all anything she want I granted to
her all they want I do. Many of my friends taught me that she only bitter me because she only be
with me if I gave what she want. Because I love her even all my friends mad with me I accept it,
all of they advice me I ignore it and I also left my best friend just because of her. But in the ending
she left me all alone and makes me realize that all the time and money that I’ve shared with her is
being wasting and it is better if I shared it in my friends that can’t never live me.

What I learned:

I’ve learned the concept of utilitarianism.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is happiness?
2. What is utilitarianism?
3. How it can affect to our ethical virtue?
4. What can cause happiness?
5. What is the principle of Utility?

Review Questions:

1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions
that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such a as lying and stealing.

- Principle of utility is also known as “Greatest Happiness Principle”.

As I read in the text all the action that are positive effects can bring
happiness to the doer but if it is negative it will never bring
happiness to the doer.
 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of
swine?

- He tries to protect himself but sadly he point out again.

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

- It defends how we prioritize things.

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

- Based on him if you are happy the other also happy.

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

- Based of what I’ve understand in this essay of John Stuart Mill happiness
can be achieve to others.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you
think?

- No, because as John Stuart Mil says Principle of utility is like “A Greatest
Happiness Principle.

2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower
ones?

- No, because we all have different ideas and understanding.

3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the
ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?

- No.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is
defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is
there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

- I agree because each his explanation he have already and back-up

beliefs.
 Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: James Rachels – The Debate Over Utilitarianism

Quote:

“You can never say that you are happy because happiness is desirable”

What I expect to learn:

In this part of the chapter 1 James Rachels shared some of his own views and important
insight about the debate over Utilitarianism. James Rachels is the defenders of utilitarianism. For
him utilitarianism is correct in telling us to consider the consequences of actions and in advising
us to be impartial, but incorrect in ignoring other important moral considerations such as merit.
Utilitarianism for is bettering people like feels to him/her that you love even it is not true, and at
the same time requesting to give expensive gifts even you don’t want him/her. Just what I’ve tell
before in the utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill what happen on me when I was on elementary is
one of the good example of Utilitarianism. James Rachels objected to the ideas of utilitarianism
based on three propositions. First proposition are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of
their consequences. Second one is assessing consequences, the only thing that matters in the
amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Then lastly, calculating the happiness or
unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than
anyone else.

What I learned:

I learned that Utilitarianism have a lot of preposition.

Integrative Questions:

1. What do you mean resilience of the theory?

2. What is classical theory?
3. What is utilitarian doctrine means?
4. Do you think is happiness is the only thing that matters?
5. What is correct and that is incorrect in utilitarianism?

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?

- Imagine that people behind you something bad about you even though
it’s not true for short backstab Bering you.

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

- They were not represented.

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

- Rule of utilitarianism a law that governs people while act utilitarianism is

the actions that suppose to happen if the rule of utilitarianism is broken.

5. What is the third line of defense?

- It only pointing out the ac of 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

- Definitely no, because our moral beliefs can bring us 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?

- Every material created by God Living thing’s or even non-living things.

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

- Yes.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Immanuel Kant – The Categorical Imperative

Quote:

“It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be
taken as good without qualification, except a good will”.

What I expect to learn:

To learn what is the meaning of Categorical Imperative.

Review:

In this part of chapter Immanuel Kant shared some ideas and some important insight
about The Categorical Imperative. Immanuel Kant is a German and he is the most important
philosophers of all time. Have made also significant contributions to all areas of philosophy by
writing books and one of his most important books are Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to
All Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgment, and the most important is the
Foundational of the Metaphysics of Morals. He believes that our moral duty can be formulated in
one supreme rule, the categorical imperative, from which all our duties can be derived. Of course
as a human we all have a good will right? Kant taught that it is impossible to conceive anything at
all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good
will.

What I learned:

What I’ve learned in this chapter is that good will can make this world better.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is good will?

2. What can make if we have good will?
3. What are the changes if all people will use good will properly?
4. What is Categorical imperative?
5. State the duties of good will to yourself?

Review Questions:

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

- For him good will is the impossible to conceive in the world.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

- Categorical imperatives means that you instantly know what contains

folder while hypothetical you can only know what it contains beforehand.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universe
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 Universal law for the sake that
good duties can be derived.

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

- “The end justifies the mean” – After the action you’ve done it can only be
judged if what is the result of it.
Discussion Questions:

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one
basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

- For me it is different because it has different actions and results.

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral
worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

- I agree.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first
formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

- For me it is yes.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Aristotle – Happiness and Virtue

Quote:

“Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good
judge. And so the man who has been educated in subject is a good judge of that subject”.

What I expect to learn:

To know the meaning of happiness and virtue based on Aristotle.

Review:

In this part of chapter Aristotle shared some ideas and important insight about Happiness
and virtue. Aristotle made important contributions to all areas of philosophy maybe because Plato
was his teacher, Plato also a philosopher. Aristotle contributes the foundation of traditional logic
that’s the reason why he became one of the founders of Western philosophy. Aristotle argues that
all human being seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but activity
accordance to the soul with virtue. Based on him there are two type of Virtue first would me moral
virtue it comes from trainings and habit and the second would be intellectual virtue which comes
from producing the most perfect happiness. Pleasure only bring happiness for a short period of
time best example of that is sex and drug while you use it or doing it you are happy after it all of
the time it always comes to your mine already so the tendency is that you will find and use it
every time in short you will be addicted from it which is bad.
What I learned:

I’ve been discovered that a pleasure can give happiness but it is dangerous.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Happiness?
2. What is Virtue?
3. What is Pleasure?
4. How do we acquire happiness in the good ways?
5. Based on Aristotle what is Moral Virtue?

Review Questions:

1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it

related to pleasure?

- Based on Aristotle all human being seek happiness, and that happiness
is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but activity accordance to the soul with virtue.

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue?

- Based on him there are two type of Virtue first would me moral virtue it
comes from trainings and habit and the second would be intellectual virtue which
comes from producing the most perfect happiness.

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

who cannot be happy?

- Yes, it is possible that all the people are happy because based on
Aristotle people can be happy if they act in the right amount.

Discussion Questions:

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

- Yes, Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beast

because once we taste it or experience it we will find it every time we want it.

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

- I do not agree because no one can predict a life of one person.

 Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Joel Feinberg – The Nature and Value of Rights

Quote:

“If this flaw makes Nowhereville too ugly to hold very long in contemplation, we can make
it pretty as we wish in other moral aspects”.

What I expect to learn:

I expect to know the Nature and Value of Rights.

Review:

In this chapter Joel Feinberg shared some ideas and important insights about The Nature
and Value of Rights. Joel Feinberg is a professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona. He is
good because he already authored several significant books concerning philosophy and human
behavior like Doing and Deserving (1970), Social Philosophy (1973), the Moral Limits of the
Criminal Law (1984-1989) in four volumes, and Freedom and Fulfillment (1994). Feinberg
demonstrate that rights are morally important. To do this, he imagines Nowheresville, a world like
our own except that people do no have rights. He show how important the rights with morality.
We all known that the people without the right will no have freedom I like the example of Joel
Feinberg the town of Nowheresville it is a town where in people don’t have a rights. This town is
very beautiful but the only thing that they don’t have is rights.

What I learned:

I’ve learned how’s important the right is in our society.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Nowheresville?
2. What is the importance of rights in our society?
3. What is nature based on Feinberg?
4. What is Value of Rights based on Feinberg?
5. How the Value of Rights compare to Nature?

Review Questions:

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

- Nowheresville is a town where in they don’t have rights. It is different

form our world because all that they want we can do while in they’re world it is
possible.

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

- This doctrine contains all the duties to other people’s rights and the rights
for other people duties.
 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal
desert work in Nowheresville?

- Personal desert can be classify by a place that no rights so it will work if

you give a rights.

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

Nowheresville according to Feinberg?

- It will work in Nowheresville but it is advisable.

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

- Feinberg thinks that he is morally important because he have a rights.

Discussion Questions:

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why
not?

- No, he doesn’t because he prioritizes the value of rights.

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

- I think there is now claim-right because we are democratic country.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Ronald Dworkin - Taking Rights Seriously

Quote:

”if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them”.

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn what the rights to be taking seriously are.

Review:

In this part of chapter 1 Ronald Dworkin shared some ideas and some important insights
that can help us as a student. Ronald Dowrkin is a University professorof law at Jurisprudence,
Oxford University, and professor of Law at New York University. I think with his background he
can be shared some theories about ethics. Ronald Dworkin’ view, if a people have a right to do
something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. I think many people will agree to this quotation
because imagine all people should have a right so why you interfere the rights of others? Do you
think that is moral or immoral? What is the purpose of his/her rights if you cut it right? One big
example of it is the Overseas Filipino Workers they go to abroad even they too far to their family
to earn more profit than in our country but what will happen to most of them experiencing hurting
by their boss go to the jail because even they don’t have sin and the most sadly happen they will
go back to Philippines already a cold deceased.

What I learned:

I’ve learned that we need to respect each of us rights.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the message of Taking Rights Seriously?

2. Do you think it is fair if I will violate the other people rights?
3. Why do we need to take our rights seriously?
4. What Dworkin do?
5. What issues does the constitution fuse?

Review Questions:

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

- If you have a rights other people also have a right so why you should
interfere it?

2. Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are
not moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.

- Legal rights being protected by the constitution while moral right is based
on your conscience and morality. Example of it is corruptions.

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

- Legal and constitutional bur dworkin find more attractive is the legal.

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

- The rights of others.

Discussion Questions:

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

- Yes, of course we can break law because before you break it you should
know the consequences of doing that.

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

- Yes.

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

- Yes Kant would accept it.

Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: John Rawls – A Theory of Justice

Quote:

”Injustice then it is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all”

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn how to define the theory of justice.

Review:

In this part of chapter 1 John Rawls shared some ideas and some important insights that
can help us as a student. John Rawls is a professor of philosophy at Harvard University. He is the
author of Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001) and The Law of Peoples (2001). . I think with
his background he can be shared some theories about ethics. John Rawls states that there are
two principles of justice: The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle
concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. He have a theory they call it
Rawl’s Theory these are the principles that free and rational person would accept in a
hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the
partial facts about themselves. There are a lot of injustices today concerning the people’s lack of
basic liberties and inequalities in the justice system. For me with the help of this essay by Rawls
have more rights because they are granted basic services by the government. The law of
retaliation is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to
the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

What I learned:

I’ve learn the theory of Justice.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Theory of Justice?

2. What is the 1st principle of justice?
3. What is the 2nd principle of justice?
4. Differentiate the two principles?
5. What is the main idea of justice?

Review Questions:

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

- Rawl’s Basic principle is that rule for the basic structure of the society.

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

- The first principle involves equal basic liberties.

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

- The second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic

inequalities.

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. What does
this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage
in homosexual activities as long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people
produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people
allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

- Yes, it has equal rights.

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon
different principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an
equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why
wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as
capitalism?

- Yes’ they can especially if they bolt together their ideas and insights.
 Contemporary Moral Problems

Chapter: Annette Baier – The Need for More Than Justice

Quote:

“The differences are as much emphasis as in substance, or we can say that they are
differences in tone of voice”.

What I expect to learn:

To study what is The Need for More Than justice.

Review:

In this part of chapter 1 Annette Baier shared some ideas and some important insights
that can help us as a student. Annette Baier is a teacher of philosophy at the University of
Pittsburgh. She authored several significant books about morality and ethics like a Progress of
Sentiments: Reflections on Kume’s Treative and Moral Prejudices: Baier distinguishes between
the justice perspective of philosophers such as Kant and Rawls and the chapter perspective
Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development women. He also argues that the justice
perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory. The best moral theory, she claims, is one
that harmonizes just and cares. She suggests that the government take care the people because
without the government this would be the probability to happen people will be committing crime
and as a result there careless.

What I learned:

I learned that caring is very important.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Care?
2. What is the Need For more Than Justice?
3. Explain Moral Theory?
4. What is Moral Development Woman?
5. What is Moral Prejudices?

Review Questions:

1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do
these perspectives develop?

- The government should take care of the people.

2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and

Baier make of this theory?

- The progress of affiliate relationship.

 3. Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their
critics. What are these differences?

- They should have equal relationship.

4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly
passions?

- Because it flawed.

Discussion Questions:

1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of our
patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon
the old values of justice, freedom, and right?

- The new values should replace the old once.

2. What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings,
including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

- The problem on Baier adds right but the people don’t understand it yet.

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do

not choose our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and
isn’t this very important?

- It is important for me because without freedom of choice I will not do all I

want.