ITETHIC CMP

8/14/2019 ITETHIC CMP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itethic-cmp 1/21

An Ethicist view on theContemporary Moral

Problems

Author: Michael Angelo Magat

•

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/






Table Of Content

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

5

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience6

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave- Morality

7

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

9

John stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

10

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism11

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

12

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

14

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights

15

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously16

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

17

Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice

18



Dedication

I dedicate this book to my loving parents, friends, love ones, and other

people that will read my book. This is my third book and second copyrighted

book. I hope you enjoy this book and appreciate the contents and at least

learn something about the contemporary moral problems.



Preface

This book I wrote, is about the contemporary moral problems on our ITETHIC

class. The book discussed some of the Ethical Theories from different authors

like Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, James Rachels and other famous Ethicists. I

hope you enjoy reading this book.



Title: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Learning Expectation:

I will learn the meaning of Egoism and Moral Scepticism

I will learn more about morality and how it is apply on our daily lives.

Quote:

“Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never

question. We assume, for example, that we have an obligation to consider the

welfare of other people when we decide what actions to perform or what rules to

obey; we think that we must refrain from acting in ways harmful to others, and that

we must respect their rights and interests as well as our own. We also assume thatpeople are in fact capable of being motivated by such considerations, that is, that

people are not wholly selfish and that they do sometimes act in the interests of

others”.

Review

This is the first chapter of the CMP book or Contemporary Moral Problems. The book

actually includes some modern morality issues that our generation is having. The

first chapter is about the Ethical Theories and the first part of the chapter is entitled

Egoism and Moral Scepticism by James Rachels. The first part of the article talksabout the legen of Gyges from Glaucon in Book II of Plato’s Republic. The story is

about a shepherd that found a ring that will turn the wearer invisible and enable

him to go anywhere he like. He use the power of the ring to steal things, enter the

Royal Palace, seduce the Queen and murder the King. Then Glaucon apply the

concept of the ring and give it to a rouge and a man with virtue. Glaucon said that

both will take the same course if they have the same power or position. They will

behave the same even if they are two opposite person.

It is stated the meaning of Ethical Egoism, it is a normative view about how men

ought to act. The second topic in the article is whether a man’s act is selfish or

unselfish. The example that is written on the article is about a man that sacrifice his

trip to other country to help a friend on his study. The argument on the scenario is if

the man’s act is really unselfish or he had a reason on why did he do that. It stated

that if the man really wants to do what he most wants to do is it really unselfishness

or not?



As I read the article, I observe that the views of ethical egoism is not consistent and

some of their views are not that clear to me.

What I’ve learned

I learned the different views of ethical and psychological egoism.I understand more on the concept of being selfish or unselfish.

Integrative Question

What is the story of Gyges all about?

If you have the power of the ring that Gyges have, what will you do?

What is ethical egoism?

What is psychological egoism?

What is morality?

Title: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Learning Expectations

I expect to learn more about Religion, Morality and Conscience.

I will learn the difference Morality of different Religions

Quote

“Revelation comes in at least two forms, and not even all Christians agree on which

is the best way to understand revelation. Some hold that revelation occurs when

god tells us what he wants by providing us with His words: Then Ten

Commandments are an example. Many even believe, as evangelist Billy Graham

once said, that the entire Bible was written by God using thirty-nine secretaries.

Others, however, doubt that the “word of God” refers literally to the words that God

has spoken, but believe instead that the Bible is an historical document, written by

human beings, of the events or occasions in which God revealed himself. It is an

especially important document, of course, but nothing more than that. So on this

view, revelation is not understood as statements made by God rather as His acts,

such as leading His people from Egypt, testing Job, and sending His son as an

example of the ideal life. The Bible is not itself revelation, it’s the historical account

of revelatory actions.”

Review



I like this article of John Arthur. The biggest question that he focuses on this article

is if religion is essential or necessary on morality. Morality is doing the right things

or acts. As we see, different religion had their different views on morality. There are

conflicts when studying the morality of every religion and as a person, we must

accept and respect it. There are things that is moral based on law or legal aspect

but it is not belong to religion. We can see that there are many factors that a manmust consider on doing what is right. Our conscience is a big factor affecting our

moral acts.

The author also discussed about the Divine Command Theory, it mean that “God

has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature has to statutes it

enacts: without God’s command there would be no moral rules, just as without a

legislature there would be no statutes.” It is talks about the when God sits at the

foundation of morality then we can found the difference between right and wrong.

God has the divine power to tell if your act is right or wrong.

The last part of John Arthur article is about “morality is social”. People based their

morality based on the morality of the whole society. I like the line about morality

provides the standards we rely on our interactions with family, lovers, friends, fellow

citizens, and even strangers. It is true that sometimes morality affects our

interactions with them and sometimes we didn’t realize it at all.

John Arthur doesn’t claim that religion and morality are independent with each

other but morality is really a big issue that many factors are affecting it not just

religion.

What I learned

I learned more about morality and how people based it.

I learned that there are many factors are affecting the basis of morality


What is morality?

What is religion?

Do you think religion is necessary for morality?

What is the divine command theory?

How do you think morality and religion is connected?

Title: Master – and Slave – Morality

What I expect to learn

I will learn what does master and slave morality means.



I will learn what does my morality stand.

Quote

“A healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their “will to power”,

their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person

follows a “master-morality” that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom,as distinguished from a “slave-morality” that class for weakness, submission,

sympathy, and love.”

Review

The above quote is the summary on what does the article all about and I will

elaborate more about the information. First is “will to power”, from my own view,

the people do things to have a power on their own. They work hard to get a power

for example is a politician, a politician will do all he can to approach the people to

vote for him. He has the will to gain a power. The politician will do all things even if

buying the votes of the people or bribing them. There is a command and abuse

happening while he wants the power.

Master-morality is applied on the superior people or noble one. They believe that all

of their acts are good and the acts of the poor or not powerful once are bad. They

are called creator of value because the powerful people can create their own value

and these values for them are right. In the master-morality, the elites can do

whatever they want, they have the freedom, and they have the strength to spread

their powers. This morality can be applied to kings, elite people, politicians and

other powerful people. Based on my opinion, I think that this morality is harsh for

other people because they don’t care if they will hurt the other people physically oremotionally. I think these people thinks that they are invulnerable to harm because

they have the power.

Slave-morality is the opposite of master-morality. It talks about the weak class of

people or the poor or doesn’t have the power. The public have the slave-morality

and it is about love, being submissive and other opposite characteristics of the

elites. From the term slave, they are the ones who just follow the powerful. They

lack of rights and the will to change because they treat themselves as slaves of a

master.

What I learned

I learn the difference between Master- and Slave- Morality.

I learn about the Will to Power.




What is the meaning of Master Morality?

What is the meaning of Slave Morality?

What morality would you prefer? Master-morality or Slave-morality?

What is the difference between Master and Slave Morality?

What is the Will to Power?

Title: Trying Out One’s New Sword


I expect to learn more about eh culture of other people/country.

I will learn how to respect the culture of other people.

Quote

“We are asking the questions which arise from where we stand, questions which we

can see the sense of. We do this because asking questions which you can’t see the

sense of is humbug. Certainly we can extend our questioning by imaginative effort.

We can come to understand other societies better. By doing so, we may make their

questions out own, or we may see that they are really forms of the questions which

we are asking already. This is not impossible. It is just very hard work. The obstacles

which often prevent it are simply those of ordinary ignorance, laziness and

prejudice.”

Review

The article is from Mary Midgley that attacks moral isolationism. It is true that there

are many cultures and beliefs in the world. Many people share the same beliefs and

all of us must respect these beliefs. The point of Mary Midgley is criticizing otherculture is bad because it is their culture and we must respect it. We don’t have the

rights to criticize it because we don’t know anything about it. The example about

the Japanese custom of tsujigiri is discussed on the article that talks about the

practice of trying out a new samurai sword on a chance wayfarer. I am actually

shocked about this culture because why does the Japanese have to kill an innocent

person just to test his samurai sword. For me it is immoral but from the point of

view of the Japanese, they think and believe that it is a right act. We must respect



it because we don’t know the origin or the reason on why does the Japanese do it.

One of the issue that I think applicable on the article is the beliefs of the Chinese

that they must only marry Chinese person also. As a Filipino, I think there is nothing

wrong marrying the people on other country because the origin is not the basis of

love. But I think from the point of view of a Chinese, their culture is just right. They

must marry a Chinese also and they will not accept the people from the differentcountry. We must remember to respect other people’s beliefs and culture to avoid

conflicts or misunderstanding to them and we must be open also to other beliefs so

that our minds will be open on these changes.

What I learned

There are many culture and I can say weird culture from other country.


What is the meaning of moral isolationism?

Explain the tsujigiri custom of the Japanese.

Do you think tsujugiri is right or wrong? Tell other customs on the different country that you know.

Do you think it is right to criticize the culture of other people?

Title: Utilitarianism


I will learn the view of John Stuart Mill about morality.

I will learn what does Utilitarianism means.

Quote

“If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasure, or what makes one

pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater

in amount, there is but one possible answer. 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.”



Review

The view of John Stuart Mill is the things that makes you happy are the right things

and the things that produce the reverse of happiness is wrong. I agree on the views

of John Stuart Mill because I also think that the right things that I do makes mehappy. The acts that I do that makes me happy are right actions and the actions

that make me feel uncomfortable or sad are wrong. For example, you study well

because you have an exam, when the examination day arrives. You take the exam

and when the result is released, you find out that you got a high score. You will feel

happy and you will think that your action on studying well is the right thing to do.

On the reverse of the scenario, when you don’t study well and just wait for the

examination day to arrive and you take the test unprepared. You will surely fail the

exam and this will make you miserable because you did the wrong thing.

“Happiness is intended pleasure and absence of pain,” Mill says on his article. After

you feel happy, there is a pleasure that you will feel. You will feel relaxed and

delighted to things around you and with this stage, you can easily decide to some

decisions that will also lead you on being happy. We know that our mood affects our

decision, when we are sad or angry, we may tend to do some harsh decisions.

The morality that John Stuart Mill is to do things that will make you happy because

these are the right things to do and don’t make decisions or actions that will make

you sad because these are the wrong things.

What I learned

I learned the view of John Stuart Mill about Utilitarianism

I learned that we must do the things that will make us happy because these are the

right things

Happiness is intended pleasure and absence of pain.


What is Utilitarianism?

Do you believe on the idea of John Stuart Mill about Utilitarianism?

Do you believe that the things that will make you happy is the right things?

What is the principle of Utility?

What is the Greatest Happiness Principle?

Title: The debate over Utilitarianism




I expect to learn how James Rachels reply to the Utilitarianism view of John Stuart

Mill and Friedrich Nierzsche.

I expect to learn the opinion of James Rachels about Happiness.

Quote:

“ The strength of Utilitarianism is that it firmly resists “corruption” by possibly

irrational elements. By sticking to the Principle of Utility as the only standard for

judging right and wrong, it avoids all danger of incorporating into moral theory

prejudices, feelings, and “intuitions” that have no rational basis.

Review

The article of James Rachels contradict the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill. Rachels

posted some propositions that can summarize the Classical Utilitarianism of

Bentham and Mill. First , the actions of a man are to be judged right or wrong in

virtue of their consequences. The right actions are, simply, those that have the best

consequences. Second, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or

unhappiness that is caused and everything else is irrelevant. Last, in calculating the

happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted

as more important than anyone else’s. Person’s welfare is equally important.

Rachels view is that Utilitarianism is correct in telling us to consider consequences

of actions and in advising us to be impartial, but incorrect ignoring other important

moral considerations as merit. He believes that Mill is correct but his Utilitarianismlacks some ideas that is important on studying ethics. Rachels also wants the

people to believe and think of the consequences that the actions may result.

Rachels posted the term Hedonism, it is a perennially popular theory that goes back

as far as the ancient Greeks and it is about that happiness is the one ultimate good

and unhappiness is the one ultimate evil.

For me, consequences is important when making a decision. I am a type of person

that always thinks about other people before myself. I always think that if I do

something that will lead me to my happiness but another person will be miserable

on may action, I will not pursue my action because I am afraid to hurt other people’sfeelings. The consequences of my actions is important to me and I always value it.

What I learn

I learn that every consequence is important when doing an action.



We must think of the feelings of other person when making a decision.

Integrated Question

Is the happiness of your action is really important?

Is the consequences of your actions is important to you?

What are the three proposition that Rachels enumerate?What is hedonism?

What is the view of Rachels on Utilitarianism?

Title: The Categorical Imperative


I will learn the concept of Categorical Imperative.

I will learn the views of Immanuel Kant on morality.

Quote

“That is to say I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my

maxim should become a universal law. Here bare conformity to universal law as

such (without having as its base any law prescribing particular actions) is what

serves the will as its principle, and must so serve it if duty is not to be everywhere

an empty delusion and a chimerical concept. The ordinary reason of mankind also

agrees with this completely in its practical judgments and always has the aforesaid

principle before its eyes…”

Review

The article of Immanuel Kant focuses on Categorical Imperative it means that our

moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule. The view of Immanuel Kant is

Deontological, it means that the people will not focus on the end result or

consequences but he will focus on his duty and his duty is good. Kant say that there

are two type of will and it is a good or bad will.

Imannuel Kant also explain the idea of Maxim, it is a subjective principle of action

and must be distinguished from an objective principle. It means that your action can

be soon become a universal law.

The duties of each person is important based on the Categorical Imperative and

Kant wants to tell us that we must not think of the consequences of our action. Our

act on our duty is the most important part of it. I think the concept of the

Categorical Imperative is the opposite of the view of James Rachels.

James Rachels’ view talks about that consequences of our actions is important on

judging if our actions is right or not.

What I learned



I learned that we must not focus on the result of our action.


What is categorical imperative?

What is maxim?What is important on the view Kant?

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperative?

What is good will?



Title: Happiness and Virtue


I will learn the meaning of Happiness and Virtue on the views of Aristotle.

I will learn the morality that Aristotle is imposing.

Quote:

“being a man, one will also need external prosperity; for our natures is not self-

sufficient for the purpose of contemplation, but our body also must be healthy and

must have food and other attention.. Still, we must not think that the man who is to

be happy will need many things or great thinks, merely because he cannot be

supremely happy without external goods; for self-sufficiency and action do not

involve excess, and we can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea”

Review:

The article is about Aristotle’s view on Happiness and Virtue and what are the

concepts behind it. He said that all human beings seek happiness, and that

happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance

with virtue. We can see that it contradicts the idea of John Stuart Mill that Happiness

is what we seek and nothing more than that. In the previous chapter, Mill said that

Happiness is good and unhappiness is bad, on Aristotle views on the other hand

said that happiness is important but the virtue on doing the act is also important.

Aristotle state that the virtue is of two kinds: moral and intellectual. It means that

moral virtues come from training and habit, it means that we get the virtue from our

daily acts and as we practice our actions, we realize and do the things that we

believe right. On the other side, the intellectual virtue is produces the most perfecthappiness. I think the reason that the intellectual virtue produces the most perfect

happiness is you insert or apply thinking on your actions. You observe and come up

on the best action because you think carefully on it. You found happiness and

satisfaction when making a decision.

What I learned

I learned that there are two kinds of virtue, moral and intellectual.

I learned that people seek for happiness.


What are the two types of virtues?

What do people seek?

What is virtue?

What is the meaning of Moral Virtue?

What is the meaning of Intellectual Virtue?



Title: The Nature and Value of Rights


I expect to understand the view of Joel Feinberg on morality.

I will learn the nature of rights

I will learn the value of rights

Quote

“Try to imagine Nowheresville – a world very much like our own except that no one,

or hardly any one ( the qualification is not important), has rights. If this flaw makes

Nowhersville too ugly to hold very long in contemplations, we can make it as pretty

as we wish in other moral respects. We can, for example, make the human beings in

it as attractive and virtuous as possible without taxing our conceptions f the limits

of human nature. In particular, let the virtues of moral sensibility flourish. Fill this

imagined world with as much benevolence, compassion, sympathy, and pity as it

will conveniently hold without strain. “

Review

In this article, Feinberg discussed the importance of rights by demonstrating that

rights are morally important. I believe that rights of the people is very important in

building a healthy society. I can’t imagine a place where there is no justice and the

people are treated badly especially the weak ones. Feinberg talks about ht

Nowheresville, it is a world that people do not have rights. The people are treated

unjustly and they can’t do anything on this harassment. The people cannot demand

or claim just treatment because basically they don’t have rights at all. The authority

is abusing them and the powerful ones are the most happy person on that world. I

imagine living in this world as I read the article and I don’t think I can’t live in to thatworld. As we can see, in our country, people have human rights but in some events,

there rights are deprive and abused. Those people feel upset and they want to take

revenge on the people that abused them. We can observe that we value rights and

for us it is really important. We must have justice if somebody do some bad things

to us. People need legal justice and I think that we really need this in order to stand

for ourselves.

What I learned

I learned that right is very important to the people.

All people must be treated justly.No one must deprive our rights.


What is right?

How Feinberg demonstrate rights?

Is right important to you? Why?

Do you want to live in a world like Nowheresville?





Title: Taking Rights Seriously

Learning Expectation

I expect that I will learn something about the rights of the people.I will know the view of Ronald Dworkin on the rights of the people.

Quote

“They must show that they understand what rights are, and they must not cheat n

the full implication of

the doctrine. The Government will not reestablish respect for law without giving the

law some claim to respect. It cannot do that if it neglects the one feature that

distinguishes law from ordered brutality. If the Government does not take rights

seriously, then it does not take law seriously either.”

Review

The topic is quite complicated but I like the points that the author said. As is

read the article, I imagined the things that are happening nowadays. The question

that I like in the context is the question if people does really have rights. It said that

the Government have the final word for the rights that the people have. But it is not

necessarily sure that the view of the Government is the right or correct view on

what is right. When the people think of right that they must have, the Government

must first approve it. so the question is, does it mean that people doesn't have

rights at all? This point actually confuse me and made me think. I think that theauthor does have a point. Does we really have rights and are the rights that the

government gives us is the rights that we need?

Another point of the author is about “if people have a right to do something,

then it is wrong to interfere with them”. The freedom of speech is used on the

article because I think this the common rights of the people that the Government

always interfere when a person wants to say something and the Government thinks

that the person must not say what he/she wants to say. There are four topics

discussed in the article. First is about the rights of the citizens that enumerates the

common rights of the people and how the people get this rights. Second is theRights and the Right to break the Law it talks about if people does have the rights to

break the law and that there is a punishment if they break the law. The third one is

about Controversial Rights. The topic talks about the hypothetical argument if a

man has a particular right against the Government, that right survives contrary

legislation or adjudication. The last topic is about why people take rights seriously.

We know that we must do the right things and people have their rights but we must



always think that we must not do the wrong things or juridical wrong acts because

the Government can jail us.

What I’ve learned

I learned that the Government is a really big sector of a country that dictates therights of the people.

People have different rights and we must know these rights.

Integrative question

1. Is it right that if people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to

interfere them?

2. What are rights?

3. What is the difference between freewill and rights?

4. What do you think are the punishments that the government will give if you

commit a crime?

5. Is freedom of speech important for us?

Title: A theory of Justice

Learning Expectation:

I will learn the Theory of Justice of John Rawls

I will learn the meaning of Justice from the views of Rawls

Quote

A final remark. Justice as fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear

that the contract idea can be extended to the choice of more or less an entire

ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for all the virtues and not

only for justice. Now for the most part I shall consider only principles of justice and

others closely related to them; I make no attempt to discuss the virtues is a

Symantec way. Obviously if justice as fairness succeeds reasonably well, next step

would be to study the more general view suggested by the name “rightness as

fairness”.

Review

The article talks about the view of John Rawls about Justice. Rawls’ theory are the

principle that “free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original

position where there is veil of ignorance hiding the contractors all the particular

facts about themselves”. Rawls also said that “Justice as fairness”. Everyone must



experience the fair justice even if you are an elite or a peasant. This article further

discussed the importance of Justice in people. People value their rights and they

need fairness. If someone hurt them, that someone must receive the right

punishment for their actions. In justice as fairness the original position of equality

corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. We

can do things legally and find equality in it. Rawls also discussed two principle of justice. First is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive

basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. It basically means that

people must experience equality or fairness and they must have equal rights. They

must have the same liberty for others so that the people in the society can live

peacefully. The second principle states that social and economic inequalities are to

be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s

advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all. This principle

states the fairness that must happen in the society. It also states that the positions

in the offices must be open to all and all of the people must have equal rights on

entering those positions.

What I learned

I learned the two principle of justice.

I learned that fairness in the society is essential in building a healthy society.

Integrative Question.What is Justice?

What is right?

Do you agree that justice as fairness?

What is the first principle of justice?

What is the second principle of justice?

Title: The Need for More Than Justice


I expect that the concept of Justice will be more discussed in the article.I expect to learn the views of Annete Baier on justice and why it is essential to us.

Quote

“It will most likely be the women who propose the marriage, since they are the ones

with more natural empathy, with the better diplomatic skills, the ones more likely to

shoulder responsibility and take moral initiative, and the ones who find it easiest to

empathize and care about how the other party feels. Then, once there is this union



of male and female moral wisdom, we maybe can teach each other the moral skills

each gender currently lacks, so that the gender difference in moral outlook that

Gilligan fond will slowly become less marked”

Review:

The article of Annete Baier is like a summary on the justice philosophy of Kant and

Rawls and the care philosophy of Gilligan about women. Baier believes that the best

moral theory is one that harmonizes justice and care. Baier argues that the justice

perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory. Baier includes man other

philosophers on her article. She posted the views of other people so that we can

understand more the concept of justice. The article is basically further teach the

concept of justice and what are the other justice that we can receive. As a human

being, we must have equal justice and fairness is important to us. People that won

their rights are the fulfilled ones. Baier said that justice overlooks inequalities

between people, and it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it ignores

the importance of moral emotions such as love. Baier example is the parent-child

relationship, I think love is important factor on our lives. Baier thinks that the

perspective of justice is not applicable on the concept of love because somehow it

deprives the emotions of other people. The article is somehow confusing because of

the many concept that Baier include to it but I think that it is helpful to understand

more about the concept of justice.

What I’ve learned

I learned the views of Baier about justice.

I learned the different views of other philosophers on justice.

Integrative question

What is right?

What is justice?

Do you agree on the point of Baier about justice?

Do you think that justice ignores the importance of moral emotions?

Do you think that the principle of justice is inadequate as moral theory?

ITETHIC CMP

Documents