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 the freedom of choice I cannot do all I want.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.