12 Ethical Theories Behind Contemporary Moral Problems Final Book

1 Running Head: 12 Ethical

12 Ethical Theories Behind

Contemporary Moral Problems

Eduardo Miguel H. Cueto

De La Salle – College of Saint Benilde

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License


Table of Contents

Page no.

Title Page …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Ethical Theories on CMP: Essays ……..……………….……………………..………………………………… 6‐30

Egoism and Moral Skepticism ………………………………………………………………………. 7‐8

Religion, Morality, and Conscience ………………………………………………………………. 9‐10

Master‐ and Slave‐Morality ………………………………………………………………………….. 11‐12

Trying Out One’s New Sword ………………………………………………………………………… 13‐14

Utilitarianism ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15‐16

The Debate Over Utilitarianism …………………………………………………………………….. 17‐18

The Categorical Imperative …………………………………………………………………………… 19‐20

Happiness and Virtue ……………………………………………………………………………………. 21‐22

The Nature and Value of Rights …………………………………………………………………….. 23‐24

Taking Rights Seriously ………………………………………………………………………………….. 25‐26

A Theory of Justice ………………………………………………………………………………………… 27‐28

The Need for More Than Justice ……………………………………………………………………. 29‐30


Dedication

This book is dedicated all those who have helped in its formation, knowingly or otherwise:

To Mr. Paul Pajo who was the driving force behind this publication

To my ITETHIC classmates who made every class good enough to actually participate in

And to our Heavenly Father without whom nothing would be possible let alone this book


Preface

Before we can even judge whether an act is morally right or not, we need to know about the ethical theories that provide the basis for our decisions. This book highlights 12 specific ethical theories that can be used to explain whether an action is good or not. The 12 theories can be used as a basis to judge whether certain actions are morally right, especially in the modern setting, which is the main context of this book.

I hope that this book will help enlighten its readers on the theories that are used as bases for our decisions on whether an act is good or not.


Abstract

This paper is a consolidation of reflections on how the author has understood the meaning and application of the 12 ethical theories behind contemporary moral problems. Each of the reflections explores its corresponding theory in terms of the implications that they, i.e. if it is morally right or not.


Ethical Theories on CMP: Essays


Chapter 1: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Amazon Reference:

http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary‐Moral‐Problems‐James‐White/dp/0534584306/

Quote:

“Indeed, a man without any sympathy at all would scarcely be recognizable as a man…”

What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn how conventional morality holds up against psychological and ethical egoism, and if the two hold any truth at all.

Review: We usually view morality as something that is inherent to us. Thus, we hardly give it a thought as to whether it is in fact properly aligned. Not everyone can think of questioning their ideas of right and wrong, to see if they themselves are right or wrong. But some of these assumptions of morality have been in fact been questioned by some throughout the ages. Two of the ideas that they have contrived are psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Both of them are views that are used to attack our conventional notions of morality. Although psychological egoism does seem to hold true on its own at first glance, but it then unravels by itself with further analysis. Psychological egoism holds that all actions are made in self‐interest or selfishness, that we do what we do because we want to do them over anything else. This cannot be taken as true seeing as not all acts, especially those we consider as noble and selfless, are done with self‐satisfaction in mind. Psychological egoism holds that every act is selfish even those we consider as good, like helping those in need. This contradiction is what was used by the writer to refute the notion of psychological egoism. Ethical egoism on the other hand is a different theory in itself to psychological egoism as it warrants that all actions should be done in self‐interest, with the welfare of others coming second to your own. This means putting yourself first over others even if it means they will be harmed as a consequence of your actions. Although some people do exhibit this behavior, which is an evidence of its existence and thus cannot be proven to be false, it cannot be a universally held belief seeing as evangelizing its practice would go against the self‐interest of the original follower of the notion. These are only two of the ideas used to attack our notions of conventional morality but the two of them have very glaring inconsistencies. Psychological egoism was proven to be false while ethical egoism was proven to be a very rare idea held by some people and thus couldn’t be exercised by all. Thus, our conventional notions of morality hold true against these two.


What I learned:

• The definition and notions of psychological and ethical egoism • How conventional morality holds true against both • Different, though sometimes erroneous, notions of self‐interest and selflessness

Integrative Questions:

1. What are psychological and ethical egoism? 2. How are they similar? 3. How are they different? 4. Do they propose reasonable arguments against commonly held notions of morality? 5. Why is the practice of ethical egoism extremely rare?


Chapter 2: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Amazon Reference:

http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary‐Moral‐Problems‐James‐White/dp/0534584306/ Quote:

“Morality cannot exist without the broader, social perspective introduced by others…” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn how religion, morality, and a person’s conscience are related to each other, if at all. Review: It’s pretty safe to say that religion and morality are related to some degree. But is this relationship based on one being dependent on the other or are they both independent of one another despite their being related? And what about a person’s conscience? How is it formed, if it is formed at all and not just an inherent part of a person’s humanity. This chapter of the book sought to answer these questions, thus giving us a perspective as to how our notions of morality are shaped. Morality and religion are two very different concepts but are linked together in the human mind. It follows that every religion teaches morals and similar notions of morality are present even in different religions. But is one dependent on the other? Apparently not, seeing as religious motives are not always what drive our actions. Many times we do acts without even realizing their religious significance until after we have done it. For example, helping a person in need could have been brought about by a want to help the person in the first place. Only after we have helped the person do we realize the similarities of what we have done to the teachings of the religion that we adhere to (if any). So, we can conclude that religion and morality are independent of one another. But they are related in the similarity of some of the notions that they entail but only to that degree. A person’s conscience is what tells the person whether he or she is doing something right or wrong. But how does this conscience know what is right or wrong? This stems from a social factor, wherein we envision how others would view the action we are thinking of doing. Thus our concept of morality is influenced by the social group which we belong to, which in turn influences our conscience. Religion, morality, and the conscience are topics that are related but unique from one another. They are related in the way that they are shaped by the society that practices them or where one belongs to. But religion plays a bigger role when one considers how God (or the gods) might react to something he is thinking of doing. Which further relates it to the formation of conscience and to morality.


What I learned: • How religion and morality differ. • How they are similar. • How the formation of a person’s conscience is influenced by social and religious factors


1. How are religion and morality different? 2. How are they similar? 3. What is a conscience? 4. What are the factors influencing its formation? 5. How are religion, morality, and conscience related?


Chapter 3: Master‐ and Slave‐Morality Amazon Reference:


“…an aristocratic society… a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn how a person’s social status, especially in societies with well‐defined ranks and strata, influences his perspective of morality. Review: Every society present today is either one that employs social castes that define a person’s social status or had evolved from one. Even many of today’s democratic societies, where every person is viewed as having equal rights and opportunities as everyone else, have descended from societies that had, at some point in time, a social status defining system. In the Philippines, the Barangays of old had the Maginoo, Timawa, and Alipin castes. Pre‐Revolution France had its Three Estates, the Clergy, Nobility, and the rest of French populace. All of these kinds of societies had a glaring similarity: there was always at least one social caste that held most of the power and wealth of the society or state. The rest were almost invariably slaves who worked for the other social castes. As is usual in older societies with castes (not so with ones now) there was no middle class. You were either an aristocrat or a slave. And based on their different societal ranks, people’s views of morality were shaped differently. What can be seen among the “slave castes” of many societies is that they are the ones who practice a more reserved life. They were the ones who most often practiced humility and goodwill towards others without expecting any reward in return for what they do. Seeing as their caste is the most exposed to suffering and hardship, it would be logical to think that they wanted to lessen the suffering of others since they knew firsthand how difficult it was to endure such things. This is as opposed to the “master castes” who are the ones who mostly enjoy the pleasures of life and are constantly on a quest to enrich themselves more with them. Many members of these castes sometimes are blinded by desire for power, property, and influence, thus there view on morality is different as those of the slaves. Seeing as “morality is social” as was described in the previous chapter, it would be logical to conclude that people belonging to different social castes, even within the same society, would have different perspectives on morality.


What I learned: • How social status or rank influences a person’s notion of morality. • How notions of morality differ even among members of the same society. • The different notions of morality of members of different social castes


1. How is social status a determining factor in a person’s perspective of morality? 2. What factors affect different social castes? 3. Why are “slave castes” more moral in the conventional sense? 4. Why are “master castes” less moral in the conventional sense? 5. Does this prove that “morality is social”? How?


Chapter 4: Trying Out One’s New Sword Amazon Reference:


“To respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make a favourable judgment, however general and tentative.” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn why the notion of having different cultures is not a valid enough reason in order to say that an immoral act is considered right and how we can overcome this notion. Review: The writer basically discusses the concept of differences between cultures and how these differences render us unable to morally judge another culture’s actions and practices. She calls this principle “moral isolationism”, which can also come to mean that we cannot criticize or judge cultures that we do not understand. This belief stems from the fact that different cultures do have different practices and people within these cultures have differing opinions whether the practice of another is acceptable or not. But in order for this to be held true and practical, it has to be universally acceptable, meaning that it should be irrefutable and can be applied to any scenario. Followers of moral isolationism generally believe that the only culture which you can truly understand is your own. That you cannot fully understand why a certain practice in one culture is perfectly acceptable to its members while utterly wrong among your own society. But this argument is inherently flawed. It basically states that you have to first understand another culture before you can criticize it, which actually implies that one can actually seek to understand another culture with continued study of that culture’s society. The end result being that we can come to understand their practices and then pass on our judgment as to the moral validity of those practices. Their flawed belief results in a lack of moral reasoning where their preferred conclusion is formed before actual deliberation takes place. This proves that the theory on moral isolationism is not irrefutable and is thus false. But it is not only false in its non‐irrefutability but also in its not being universally applicable. Moral isolationism implies that there are cultural isolating barriers which prevent cultures from mixing together and understand each other. But if such barriers exist, then most of the world’s present cultures would not have been formed. Many of today’s societies have had many varying influences. Our own Filipino culture has been influenced not only by racially‐inclined factors (values, personal perspective, and language) but also religiously‐inclined ones (beliefs, superstitions, deities). The Philippines has been a mixing pot of Hindu, Chinese, Arabic, Hispanic, American, and Southeast Asian cultures as far back as archaeology can take us. The impracticability of the theory of moral isolationism and its non‐irrefutability doubly render it utterly false. The belief that there can only be separate and unmixable


cultures is unrealistic. The only significant factors that render us to believe that cultures cannot mix are only those of ignorance, laziness, and prejudice. As the writer puts it, it is not impossible for us to understand, judge, and even interact with other cultures. It is only very difficult and entails very hard work, an open mind, and a reasonable outlook. What I learned:

• The concept of separate and unmixable cultures is untrue. • That one can understand and fairly judge another’s practices even though that person is

from another culture. • The hindrances to the understanding of and giving fair moral judgment on another culture’s

practices are simple irrelevant problems concerning ignorance, laziness, and prejudice. Integrative Questions:

1. What is moral isolationism? 2. How can one come to a fair moral judgment concerning the practices of another culture? 3. What are the hindrances to arriving to such a judgment? 4. Why can’t we say that we respect another culture if we don’t fully understand it? 5. How does this concern the concept of having a universal consciousness of morality?


Chapter 5: Utilitarianism Amazon Reference:


“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” (Emphasis added).


I expect to learn about the theory of Utilitarianism and the consequences of its practice.

Review: John Stuart Mill talks of a way of life that he thinks is the most practical to follow. He talks of finding what makes us happy, whatever it may be. This may strike us as pretty obvious at first but it doesn’t exactly entail the pleasure it promises to give. If everyone were to do the things that guaranteed their happiness regardless of the moral consequences, then what would result would be nothing short of anarchy. What would happen if another person’s happiness or welfare were to stand between us and our perception of happiness? Would we go to any lengths just get what we want? According to what Mill said, that’s exactly what we should do! Let us not take into consideration what other people would think of our actions or what the consequences are, as long as we get what makes us happy then everything is okay. The dilemma here is not just on morality but on order as well. If everyone were to have the liberty to lie, cheat, steal, and kill their way to happiness, then society as we know it would have never existed. We would live in fear of other people, afraid that the next person we meet just may find that robbing us of all our possessions is what makes him happy. Life as we know it now, with all its interactions and innovations, would never have existed. The main repercussion of following our happiness regardless of the consequences is ultimately social disorder. No one would feel safe from other people, even form family members. People would cease to interact in fear of others. This is why Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism can never be practiced. Aside from spawning social disorder, it goes against what is natural. Does every person value their own happiness over the welfare of others? No, only a very small population of criminals and gluttons does. Most people would rather pass on getting what they want if it led to another person’s harm.

Thus, utilitarianism is not only virtually impossible for a large population to practice, it would also breed social disorder, which would only ultimately destroy those who brought it about.


What I learned: • The concept of Utilitarianism and hedonism. • The negative consequences of the practice of Utilitarianism. • The impracticality of Utilitarianism to general society.


1. What is Utilitarianism? 2. What are some of its negative consequences? 3. Why shouldn’t the immoral or amoral pursuit of happiness be done? 4. If everyone were to practice utilitarianism, would everyone be ultimately happy and content? Why or why not? 5. Should utilitarianism and extreme hedonism be practiced? Why or why not?


Chapter 6: The Debate over Utilitarianism Amazon Reference:


“Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake… instead, happiness is a response we have to the attainment of things that we recognize as good.” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the Theory of Utilitarianism, i.e., where it is correct and where it is deficient. Review: The original theory of utilitarianism, the one that was proposed by John Stuart Mill, would initially seem that it makes sense because of its simplicity but, after careful examination, actually has glaring holes in how it can be backed up in a rational manner. Happiness is one of the many things that people aspire for but is the utilitarian perception of happiness correct? Many examples in the application of utilitarianism have raised more questions rather than provide answers as to the action’s moral status. An example of this is a thief stealing money from somebody else, thus gaining a huge amount of wealth in the process. This obviously equates to the thief feeling happy, considering of course that his degree of happiness is directly proportional to the amount of money that he possesses. But what about the person whom the thief stole the money from? Doesn’t it result to his loss of happiness? These are the kinds of situations wherein people have questioned the validity of utilitarianism and where followers have defended it. Many contemporary followers of utilitarianism have made many defenses as to why utilitarianism is true. They seek to explain that the original concept of utilitarianism no longer conforms to the moral perception of modern society. Thus, utilitarianism must not be forgotten, but rather molded into a form that is more acceptable. There is a form of the theory called Rule‐Utilitarianism that validates the pleasure derived from doing actions that conform to pre‐existing rules or laws that societies implement and follow. This form of utilitarianism nullifies conundrums relating to a person’s loss of pleasure and/or suffering through the act of another. But utilitarianism in all its forms is still erroneous to some degree. Utilitarianism only focuses on future consequences rather than also acknowledging that certain acts can also be considered morally right even though they are based on a past occurrence. It also ignores other considerations that make an act morally right, such as merit. But its greatest fault is that it assumes that happiness is something that we aspire to achieve, rather than its being the result of our doing something that is good. They ignore the fact that happiness is a reaction to something good. They should remember that something makes us happy because it is good, rather than regarding something as good because it makes us happy.


What I learned: • The correct and incorrect (rationally inconsistent) parts of Utilitarianism. • The lines of defense that followers of Utilitarianism have proposed. • The different forms of Utilitarianism that have been formed to validate the theory.


1. What is the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism? 2. Why can this be considered as erroneous? 3. What makes the practice of Utilitarianism good? 4. What are the rational inconsistencies of Utilitarianism? 5. Is Utilitarianism still relevant? Why or why not?


Chapter 7: The Categorical Imperative Amazon Reference:


“Thus the moral worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it.”


I expect to learn about what Immanuel Kant has to say about what constitutes a good or evil act in a moral perspective.

Review: Immanuel Kant starts the reading with his idea on good will. He believes that good will is the only thing that is real (or even those that could be imagined) that is intrinsically good. All other things that we regularly think of as good, such as intelligence, wit, and courage, are not automatically labeled as good. It all depends on the will of the person utilizing the said attributes.

What matters with good will is that it is good in itself. It doesn’t matter what its results are; good will is good through its use alone. Thus it matters not whether it produces bad results or not, the exercise of good will always make any action born of it good. Thus, even those traits that we commonly believe to be evil could also be used in doing good acts. Even those things that we believe to be bad traits, such as arrogance, could actually be put to use to achieve good ends. The effect of any action born of good will still be considered good, seeing as it does not affect the good will at all. Therefore, any action born of good will not raise or diminish the value of the action.

The understanding of the concept of good will is fundamental to Kant’s formulation of his

Categorical Imperative. His categorical imperative has two versions, both of which are, in my opinion, talk of a similar thing. The first version is a general idea which could not only affect human beings but the environment and non‐rational beings as well. On the other hand, the second version is specifically concerned with the treatment of other people. Both generally speak of actions that must not contradict with what is good, i.e. those actions that accord with moral duty. In the first, good actions can be considered those that could be generally accepted or applied to everyone, while the second says that good actions are those that consider other people as not just a means to achieving something which the will is directed to but also the end to which your will is led to. Thus, our moral duty is to do acts that do not contradict with what is good which is to say those that are born out of good will.


What I learned: • That good will is the only thing that is good in itself, according to Kant. • Kant’s two versions of the Categorical Imperative, which he says is where our moral duties

are derived. • How Kant arrived at the categorical imperative.


1. What is good will? 2. What is moral duty? 3. What is the categorical imperative? 4. How are good will and moral duty essential to the formulation of the categorical imperative? 5. Does the categorical imperative validate only good acts? How so?


Chapter 8: Happiness and Virtue Amazon Reference:


“Happiness then is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world.” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about how happiness and virtue are linked to morality in Aristotle’s view. Also, on the importance of happiness as a motivation to do acts. Review: Aristotle says that what we should seek are those things that we aspire for itself and not because they lead us to seek something else. These are what he calls “final”. These are the things that don’t leave us hanging and wanting for more. When we achieve these, we are in a state of contentment and not just for a moment but for a considerably longer amount of time. One such final thing is happiness which all men seek probably above everything else. Even if we seek other things such as honor, pleasure, or wealth, we are not content with just them because they are not final. We usually aspire for these things because they lead us to be happy and content, and only then will we stop seeking for other things because happiness is final. Here, we can see how Aristotle’s notion of happiness is similar to utilitarianism. Although Aristotle does not equate happiness with good actions, it is still seen as the desirable end to which all humans aspire. But seeking happiness is only one thing; actually acquiring it is another story. According to Aristotle, happiness can only be achieved by acting in accordance with virtue. Thus, he says that happiness can only achieved by doing acts that are good and evil acts do not bear happiness as fruit. Therefore we can say that a man who does not do good cannot achieve happiness. That may be why criminals continue doing evil acts because they aspire for happiness but cannot achieve it, and as a result commit crimes, thinking that they may actually help them acquire it. But after knowing what happiness is, do we really have a clear notion of what virtue is? Aristotle defines virtue as a mean between excess and deficiency. He maintains his ideal of Moderation even in his consideration of what can be regarded as virtuous. Virtue has two kinds, moral and intellectual. With the former coming from training and habit while the latter is found in the activity of reason or contemplation. Aristotle also claims that the most perfect happiness can be found in the latter form of virtue. Aristotle, consistent with the philosophical movement of the time, formulated his view of happiness and virtue as ingredients to living a good moral life around his idea of Moderation and the idea of many philosophers that only they can achieve true happiness because of their higher intellectual enlightenment. Aristotle’s idea of happiness thus emphasizes the contentment of intellectual aspirations rather than that of physical pleasure.


What I learned: • That happiness is the ultimate goal of many. • That happiness can only be achieved by men of virtue. • That virtue has two kinds, moral and intellectual, and that the latter allows a person to

experience the most perfect kind of happiness. Integrative Questions:

1. What is happiness? 2. What is virtue? 3. How are the two related to each other and to the study of morality? 4. Why is a life of pleasure undesirable to Aristotle? 5. Why do intellectual virtues offer perfect happiness and not moral virtues?


Chapter 9: The Nature and Value of Rights Amazon Reference:


“All duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties.”


I expect to learn about how human rights are necessary for determining whether an action is morally good or not and what would happen if nobody had any rights.

Review: If you wanted to really get to know what was fundamental to morality, or anything else for that matter, wouldn’t it make sense to come up with a situation wherein you could totally control all the variables involved in the study and manipulate them so as to determine which were essential and which were only the effects. This would pose a problem since you would be studying people and their behavior, but instead of using real people and objects as subjects, everything would just be in your imagination, which was what exactly Joel Feinberg did. He imagined a fictional world, which he named Nowheresville, where nobody had any rights at all. But in order for this fictional world to even start to exist, he envisioned it to have people that were very good in the moral sense. Thus, in a normal situation, there would be harmony and order, just like in any normal scenario in our real world. But what would happen in an abnormal situation where people got killed, abused, or had their property damaged? Since people didn’t have rights, they couldn’t accuse the negligent person who caused the abnormal situation to happen. They couldn’t claim that they were abused or had their property damaged because they didn’t have the rights to back them up. In any situation where any normal person’s rights would have been violated, the people of Nowheresville can’t do anything and thus they are deprived of their self‐respect and human dignity would not exist. Feinberg argues that rights are fundamentally important to morality. Due to the rights that we have, people now have the duty to treat others well and respect them as humans. Although this doesn’t necessarily prompt people to do good, it at least refrains them from doing bad things to others. Rights fuel not only our legal system but also our notion of morality as well.


What I learned: • The role of rights in our notion of morality. • The interrelatedness of morality, rights, and duties. • The effect of a lack of rights would have to a society.


1. How are rights and duties related? 2. Which comes first, a right or a duty? Explain. 3. Why are rights fundamentally important to morality? 4. What would happen if nobody had any rights? 5. What is the end result at a personal level if there were no rights?


Chapter 10: Taking Rights Seriously Amazon Reference:


“The Government will not reestablish respect for law without giving the law some claim to respect.”


I expect to learn about the justification of human rights from a political perspective and the underlying principles behind it.

Review: Rights are a fundamental aspect of a democratic society. As many a lawyer or law professor would tell you, all of a person’s rights arise from the state, which is just a fancy way of saying that the state is the source of a person’s rights. Those are for legal rights, but what about rights that come naturally to us? Are there any such rights at all? With a little bit of reasoning, we can conclude that the state is the source of only a select group of rights. This question comes to mind: “Which comes first, a person’s dignity and liberty to do things or the state which serves to preserve this dignity and liberty?” Obviously, the former is fundamental to the latter’s existence. The opening statement, “rights are a fundamental aspect of a democratic society”, is true but only because rights are fundamental to any society. Human beings have inherent rights and the state only adds a few more that are rooted in the fundamental ones. With that being said, we can conclude that human beings are by nature at liberty to do certain things. The only limitation to that liberty is that people cannot interfere with the liberties of other people. This, I believe, is the basis for the formation of laws and governments. There needs to be an agent to protect the rights of people from being violated by others. This is the government and the law is the basis for its power. Therefore the government has the right to stop a person from exercising certain rights but only because it is limiting another person from exercising his/her own. This is done so as to preserve the inherent human dignity of the members of the community as well as to have a just and equal society.


What I learned: • The implications of everyone having rights in a society. • The role of governments in policing the misuse of people’s rights. • The underlying principles of human dignity and political equality as a basis for human rights.


1. What are the sources of a person’s rights? 2. Why is it wrong to interfere with a person’s rights? 3. When is it okay to interfere with another person’s rights? 4. What are the underlying principles behind human rights? 5. What are the role/s of governments when it comes to dealing with human rights?


Chapter 11: A Theory of Justice Amazon Reference:


“…the guiding idea [of the Social Contract] is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement.” What I expect to learn:

I expect to learn about why the notion of justice came to be and the justifications why it is held as such. Review: It would come as no surprise that the people who thought up the notions of ethics and rights are also experts on law and governance. The Ancient Greek philosophers were essentially the ones who laid the foundation for the creation of most of the Western world. They exercised reason to find out that people weren’t ordinary beings in this world; that being human entailed something special. They thought of ways to allow this specialness of humans to be manifested fully but with precautions so as to have no one person be more special than others. They taught themselves new forms of governance to answer this based on notions of freedom and equality. The Greeks were the first to acknowledge that the general population held the real power in a society and that politicians should only seek to serve the needs of the former. The Greeks went from monarchial city‐states to democratic, anarchic, oligarchic, and totalitarian. All of these forms of government had their own unique characteristics but all of them sought to serve their constituents but not always with desirable results. The point is you cannot separate ethics and rights from law and governance because they are fundamentally linked to one another. The former cannot survive very long and prosper without the other, while the latter would not have been created if not for the former. Laws and governments were created to enforce justice in society. That people have rights that should be respected by others. Justice entails equality among the people and their access to basic liberties while also acknowledging that not all people are equal in an economic and social perspective. Some are richer than others, while some could also hold more power and influence than others. Justice seeks to preserve a person’s exercise of their basic liberties (rights) while also making considerations concerning a person’ economic or social status if they interfere with the basic liberties of others. For example, a President of a country who is proven to have been extensively corrupt is charged with Plunder (which is punishable with life imprisonment, with executive clemency the only way out) while a thief who manages to steal millions of pesos from other people might not be sentenced to life imprisonment and could still get their sentence commutated. Governments are the agencies that make sure that people’s dignities are upheld and that rights are not violated. Thus, rights, governments, and the notion of justice are inherently linked to one another.


What I learned: • The inherent connection between rights, governments, and justice. • The underlying principles on the basis of the notion of justice. • The role of governments in the enforcement of justice and preservation of human rights.


1. How are rights, governments, and justice connected? 2. What are the bases for our notion of justice? 3. Why can’t rights survive long if there is no government? 4. Why can’t governments exist if there are no human rights? 5. What are the role/s of governments when it comes to dealing justice?


Chapter 12: The Need for More Than Justice Amazon Reference:


“…the best moral theory has to be a cooperative product of women and men, has to harmonize justice and care.”


I expect to learn about why justice by itself is inadequate and how this can be compensated. Review: The writer, being a woman, has a very feministic take on justice. According to her, justice as a moral theory is inadequate by itself. She, and possibly other feminists, believe that our notion of justice was based solely on rational thought. Although being human does entail our being rational, she says that we cannot discount our emotions, feelings, and passions. Many rationalists look down upon emotions because they cloud the mind, and make us susceptible to hasty decision making. Rationalists value intellectual exercise, which is not bad in itself, but because it was done on its own, they overlooked certain aspects of being human that should have been considered in the proposition of an effective moral theory. Rationalism tells us that all men are born equal. But it would seem that they overlooked the fact that not all men are born at the same time and in the same circumstances. There are social inequalities that the theory of justice has overlooked, namely parent‐child relationships and those holding public office as opposed to their constituents. This is mainly because the theory of justice assumes a general equality among humans, that everyone has the same rights. But if emotions and passions were to be considered as a moral theory by themselves, it would also become inadequate precisely due to the reasons why rationalism looks down on them. By themselves, both human qualities are not enough to establish the most effective moral theory possible. This is because one has inherent deficiencies which oddly enough are the exact complements of the other. Does this hold the answer? Rationalists have identified justice as a moral theory, which entails human rights and equality. Feminists have preached that emotions are a fundamental part to being human and as such, should be considered when developing moral theories. The writer believes, and I agree, that the best moral theory is one which considers the best aspects of both rationalists and feminists. Justice coupled with care for others probably is the best moral theory that could ever be developed.


What I learned: • The inadequacies of justice as a moral theory. • The power of emotions and its inalienability to being human. • The combination of justice and care as a moral theory.


6. Why is justice inadequate as a moral theory by itself? 7. Why can you not separate rationalism and emotions when considering a moral theory? 8. What is probably the best moral theory that could be thought of? 9. What are some social inequalities that the justice theory overlooks? 10. Why is justice coupled with care the best moral theory?

12 Ethical Theories Behind Contemporary Moral Problems Final Book

Documents

ethical egoism

ethical ethicaltheoriesoncmp

ethical whatilearned

ethical chapter1

ethical theories

ethical chapter2

ethical dedication tomr

ethical tableofcontents