03.03.09
CMP_Chapter 9_Book Review
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems
Title: The Nature and Value of Rights
Author: Joel Feinberg
Quotes:
“A legal duty is not something we are implored or advised to do merely; it is something the law, or an authority under the law, requires us to do whether we want to or not, under pain of penalty”
Learning Expectation:
I want to know the stand of Joel Feinberg on this topic. I want to understand the concept of Nature and Value of Rights.
Review:
Joel Feinberg, the author of the sub-chapter titled The Nature and Value of Rights, discusses all about Rights.
In the first statement of Feinberg, he conducted an experiment. Feinberg asks his reader to imagine Nowheresville on his experiment. Nowheresville is a world wherein rights are not allowed. In this place, No one has its own right to give his own thoughts, to speak for himself/herself. If we are to compare this to our country or to other country, you might find that we are much more of a free country than Nowheresville in a sense that we have our own rights and use it in protecting ourselves, our country in a not usual issue. In Nowheresville, people in that place cannot claim because they don’t even have rights. There’s no place in Nowheresville that people can claim whatever damages as implied in any situation.
Feinberg also discussed the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. At first, I don’t understand the concept of this doctrine. As the author explained, this doctrine describes duties as a people’s rights and the rights that will give people’s duties. The author stated that it’s just a matter of Yes or No. Honestly, I didn’t understand his stand on the Yes or No.
Aside from this, the author defines duty in a sense that it is related to people’s actions. Here Feinberg explained that duty is a must which means even though people who do any kind of duty is required to do otherwise there’s what the author called under the pain of penalty. It is for the people to do it because there’s a due. Whether the people like it to do or not, it is for them to do it. Sometimes duty was fulfilled but still people cannot determine whether that duty is for his/her betterment or happiness or it’s just a duty that you must accomplish.
The author cited an example. For instance, there’s a traffic light and it turned in red. Drivers have duty to stop and not to complain. They must do their duty otherwise they will be facing troubles. In this case, a person has a duty to comply with that. If you would base this example in Nowheresville, the one that was in the experiment of Feinberg, you will find that people doesn’t have any right to complain or to voice out their thoughts regarding to some issues because totally they don’t have their rights to do that.
What I’ve learned:
Upon reading this, I find that duty is just a duty meaning person who is responsible to that duty must do it whether he/she is happy doing that or not. In this case, a person who is engaged in any duty doesn’t have the right to complain or if you have a duty, it is for you to accomplish it. It is an action that requires the person to do it. Here, person will not be able to find out if that duty is personally right for them or just a pain of penalty. I just want to ask if people do something because it requires them to do it or is it for their own will to do that duty or does their conscience or moral want what they are doing. Duty is important but what triggers here is the people’s action to that duty.
Integrative Question:
- What is the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties?
- What is a moral worth?
- What is duty?
- What is Right?
- How was the concept of Nowheresville related to duty?
Review Question:
- Nowheresville is a place mentioned by Feinberg. He describes Nowheresville as a place wherein people don’t have the rights to claim whatever damages they might encounter or in any part, there’s no right to complain or claim anything. Since there are no rights, there’s also lack of duty.
- The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties means duties entail people’s right and rights entail people’s duty. In this statement, I think duties and rights are partners. Without duty, there’s no right and the other way around. As Feinberg explains, he eventually says that it’s like a matter of Yes or No. That duty comes after the action. and rights can’t be distinguished when there’s a duty.
- Personal dessert means the individual deserves to get something good from others.
- Sovereign Right monopoly is defined the person who is said to deserve good things from others have the rights to have it as a due. In Nowheresville, this sovereign monopoly cannot be implied since no one there has the rights to claim.
CMP_Chapter 8_Book Review
Review Questions
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?
Answers:
1. Happiness
According to Aristotle, Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. He also said that happiness is not a pleasure, honor, or wealth. It’s a continuous looking for a soul’s potential for virtue. One can achieve happiness by being virtuous.
2. Moral Virtue
As Aristotle explained, Moral Virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Here, it says that this cannot be achieved by nature or it’s not something that arises by nature. It is like a habit. Person has to do something in order to get something. It’s like a habit which you will learn through a process. One example of this is reading books and writing. We definitely don’t know how to read books and write when we were babies. But time passed, we will able to learn and practice it. We need to train first in order for us to achieve this.
3. There’s always a way were people can be happy. Everyone can be happy as long as they do things accordingly or in a right manner. People have their own definition for happiness. They find the true meaning of happiness and by doing something.
Discussion Questions
1. Aristotle characterizes a life as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure?
There’s nothing wrong when sometimes people wants to have or to get into the life of pleasures. Pleasures are not bad as long as we are in the right track or we know how to deal with it in a right manner. The life of pleasure seems to be challenging for us. In people’s mind, pleasures have to sides. One is good and the other is opposite. Pleasures would only be bad if people or the one who wants pleasure is making or using it bad.
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than everyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not?
Philosophers have their own mind and have their own perspectives. They tend to be happier than anyone else because they’ve done something or they achieve what they want to achieve, they get what they want, they learn something new, or maybe they prove something. One of the things why philosophers are being happy is that they get something. Philosophers are happier because of the wisdom they shared or they find something interesting for them.
CMP_Chapter 7_Book Review
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems
Title: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Author: James Rachels
Quotes:
“To preserve one’s life is a duty”
“Rational nature exists as an end in itself”
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other; never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end……” – Immanuel Kant
Learning Expectation:
I want to understand the concept of Categorical Imperatives. I also want to know how Mr. Kant describes and explain his thoughts regarding Good Will.
Review:
This chapter tackles about Categorical Imperatives. Mr. Immanuel Kant, the author, introduces the Good Will. He defines the Good will by the means of Character. Here, he stated that it’s impossible to consider anything except the Good Will.
Kant also stated that one’s moral duty can be achieved by categorical imperatives. So far, I don’t understand what really categorical imperative is. But I believe that when I read the whole thing, I can get information and use it in the future.
Kant mentioned that Good Will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes and because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. I agree to what Kant said in this statement. Good Will would is not good unless you do well. What I mean is you cannot get the real meaning of Good Will if you don’t know how to be good or how to do good things. The main issue here is people is not born to be bad and every individual is good by its nature.
What I’ve learned:
I learned the concept of Good Will and how Good Will affects the people. I also learned that action does not depend on what you want to expect. There are things that your motives are against on your expectations.
Integrative Question:
- What is Categorical Imperative?
- What is a Good Will?
- What do you mean by motive of duty?
- What is Duty?
- What is hypothetical Imperative?
CMP_Chapter 6_Book Review
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels
Quotes:
“There is a sense in which no moral philosopher can completely reject Utilitarianism.” – James Rachels
Learning Expectation:
I want to know how James Rachel discusses his arguments about Utilitarianism. I am expecting different arguments from Rachels.
Review:
This chapter discusses the Classical Utilitarianism. Here, the author classifies it into three main points. The first one defines the actions are to be judged wrong or right solely in the virtue of their consequences. Second, you can assess consequences based on the happiness and unhappiness it brought to people or that is caused. Then lastly, it stated that no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.
Aside from this, Rachels also discusses the objections about justice, right, and promises. In justice, people should bear false witness against the innocent individual. For instance, a person kills a boy. In this case, the killer is responsible for any lawsuit or imprisonment. The family of the boy who was killed has the right to demand for justice. In the context of rights, it identifies how the action is under morality or not. In the example that was given a while ago, you will find that the action or the behaviour of the person who killed the boy was unacceptable. It’s is reasonable to punished that human being because he committed a crime. In this case, the rights will be given to the family of the dead boy. Then in Promise or Backward-looking reasons, throws the argument that the only thing that matters is the consequences.
Rachels, the author, also mentioned the concept of an Act-Utilitarianism. This Act-Utilitarianism is the old version of what they call Rule-Utilitarianism. This rule is referenced to the principle and the act of every individual. Those acts will be criticized and judged as right and wrong by the means of the reference to the rules.
What I’ve learned:
Though I didn’t purely understand the arguments and stand of Rachels regarding about Utilitarianism, I enjoyed reading it because I find something new on it. I learned that the concept of utilitarianism is not just simply what’s best for the majority. The context of Utilitarianism is also broad.
Integrative Question:
- What is the Classical Utilitarianism?
- Differentiate the 3 main points of Classical Utilitarianism
- What is Rule Utilitarianism?
- What do you mean by Backward-Looking Reasons?
- What is the strength of Utilitarianism as described by Rachels?
Review Questions:
- Classical Utilitarianism is summed up in 3 propositions. Those are the ff:
a. First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their consequences.
b. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused.
c. Third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness as to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.
2. Hedonism – explains the happiness as one ultimate good and unhappiness as the ultimate evil. Based on what Rachels stated, hedonism gets the thing in a wrong way. Hedonism has a misunderstanding on the nature of happiness.
3. The objections about justice, rights, and promise are as follows:
a. Justice – the argument is based when the action of a person is unacceptable by the law, that person should bear false witness against the innocent one.
b. Rights – it describes the case of the not fictitious wherein the morality of the officer was involved.
c. Promise/ Backward-Looking Reasons – if you promised someone, you must do it.
4. Act-Utilitarianism or the Real-Utilitarianism (the new version theory) – the action will be judged based on the rules that are established by reference to the principles.
5. The third line of defense is conducted by a small group of contemporary utilitarianism who has different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments.
Discussion Question:
1. For me it’s not acceptable. I will not choose utilitarianism over moral beliefs because in some point I am not a utilitarian and aside from that, I don’t want to reject things that will just conflict any issues.
2. Everyone deserves to be accepted even if your part is small. In utilitarianism, it is more focused on human beings who are their concern.
3. I agree to what Rachels said.
CMP_Chapter 5_Book Review
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems
Chapter: Utilitarianism
Author: John Stuart Mill
Quotes:
“Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality” – John Mill
“The desire of it is not different thing from the desire of happiness, any more than the love of music or the desire of health” – John Mill
“Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole” - John Mill
Learning Expectation:
I am expecting to understand what really are utilitarianism and its effect on the individual. I also am wondering why John Stuart Mill, the author, discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. I want to know his argument on this topic.
Review:
The chapter discusses the concept of Utilitarianism. The Author describes and explains the basic principles of Utilitarianism and why it is called as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mr. Mill defines the difference and relationship of happiness and pleasures.
According to Mill, the principle of utility or what he called as the Greatest Happiness Principle simply describes how every action becomes right as they tend to relate it to happiness, and becomes wrong as the opposite. Here, Mill cited that intended pleasures and absence of pain will determine by the means of happiness, and the pain itself involves unhappiness. One example of the unhappiness is when someone steals something. In this case, that someone is unhappy because of what he/she did. He/she will eventually feel bad after he did it. It only justifies the concept of unhappiness. People can identify unhappiness based on their actions and behaviours. For some reason, if you did something wrong, you will feel bad and your conscience will not be at peace. Then, this is the time where people become unhappy.
In this chapter, Mill also defines the concept of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism considers majority. Meaning, if something happens like for example in a country, the action for that matter will be based on the majority wherein they will identify the outcome of it.
For instance, someone kills the secretary of the country. When we say utilitarianism, it involves the majority. Since the effect of the death of the Secretary is big, it will bring us unhappiness. For , if the effect on them is big, it will only cause unhappiness and it will only be wrong for them.
Aside from the concept of Utilitarianism, Mill also discusses happiness, pleasures, and pain. Here, he said that you will only achieve happiness if it’s beyond pain.
What I’ve learned:
I learned that you will only feel the pain or unhappiness if your action is wrong. Based on the Utilitarianism, happiness can achieve based on the desire of the person and the happiness itself identifies the absolute pain.
Integrative Question:
1. What is Utilitarianism?
2. What do you mean by Happiness is desirable?
3. What is the Principle of Utility?
4. What is lower pleasure?
5. What is the difference between Higher and Lower pleasures?
Review Question:
1. The Principle of Utility describes that when the action is right, it is happiness and when it’s wrong, it is unhappiness.
2. As Mill objects the Epicureans, he stated that it will not be approved unless pleasures of the intellect, imaginations and others are not assigned.
3. Mill defines higher pleasures as all who have experience decided preference while the Lower pleasures is defined based on who are competently acquainted to both.
4. In this context, Happiness is described based on what the majority will say and feel. If the majority feel that the action is right or accepted, happiness will be established and when the utilitarian doesn’t accept that wrong behaviour, it will fall under the concept of unhappiness.
5. According to Mill, The principle of Utility is happiness and all other thing as being described as desirables.
Discussion Question:
1. When we say happiness it means pleasure but it doesn’t mean that when you are happy, there’s no pain. Happiness is an experience wherein people don’t feel pain but sometimes they tend to be happy because they sad. People sometimes are happy not because of pleasures. Maybe there are some instances that people are happy because they just want to keep away the pain or people just want to hide the pain. I don’t agree that when you are happy, there’s no pain. Sometimes, happiness will lead you into pain. Sometimes happiness can cause you so much pain that you didn’t even realize that you are suffering from pain.
2. Honestly, when I read the meaning of higher and lower pleasure, I had a hard time just to understand these concepts. I don’t understand the difference between higher and lower though the only thing that describes it is the fact that both are different on the amount it gives to the person.
3. I think what Mill said is true. In the context of the principle of utility, individual will only be happy if it will benefit the majority. It’s a matter of how the actions will benefit the majority.
CMP_Chapter 4_Book Review
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Trying out One’s New Sword
Author: Mary Midgley
Quotes:
“Isolating barriers simply cannot arise here” – Mary Midgley
“What is involved in judging?” – Mary Midgley
“The power of moral judgement is, in fact, not a luxury, not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteousness.” – Mary Midgley
“When we judge something to be good or bad, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid” – Mary Midgley
“Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policy, no chance of profiting by other people’s insights or mistakes.” – Mary Midgley
Review:
Ms. Mary Midgley, the author tackles the moral isolationism. Midgley stated that moral isolationism engages the view of anthropologists and explained that people cannot criticize cultures because they don’t understand it. She cited an example about a Japanese culture or what they called Tsujigiri. Tsujigiri is very controversial that time. It means trying out ones new sword on a chance wayfarer. It is required for them to try samurai sword because it will identifies their honour. Here, they can identify if the sword works properly by the means of slicing someone at a single blow from the shoulder at the opposite flank. The sword is the basis of the honours of their ancestors, their empire, and themselves. Midgley had an argument about moral isolationism. According to her, Moral isolationism describes or concludes on the moral reasoning. It is in the context of immoralism which determines difficulty in a logical manner.
She also discussed the concept of judging or criticizing other cultures. Here, she said that the main basis of judging cultures is our own cultures. You cannot criticize other culture if you don’t know your own culture.
In this generation, our cultures are important. We are moving in a world with different and mix cultures. People have their own understanding about their cultures and at the same time to others. People are now being judge by their actions and based on their cultures. In spite of that, people are trying their best just to understand every culture in order for them to become cooperative. Every individual must have understood every culture because it will be their basis in introducing who really they are.
What I’ve learned:
I learned that you must first understand your own culture before you criticize others. You have to learn how to be more flexible when it comes to the culture of others. Some culture might help people and some might not.
Integrative Question:
1. What is Tsijugiri?
2. What do you mean by trying out ones sword?
3. What is Moral Reasoning?
4. What is Moral Isolationism?
5. According to Midgley, What is the basis of criticizing ones culture?
Review Question:
1. Moral Isolationism defines as the view of the anthropologist and others wherein they explain that people cannot criticize cultures which they don’t understand.
2. Tsujigiri means trying out ones new sword. It is very controversial in the Japanese Culture. Here, people have to try new sword to someone. When it works, they need to slice someone at a single blow. This will identify their honor, the honors of their ancestors, and empire.
3. Midgley stated that Moral isolationism would fall in the concept of a general ban on the moral reasoning.
4. Midgley said that in determining the basis of criticizing ones culture, people should know first their own culture.
Discussion Question:
1. The only thing I know about being immoralist is being bad. Immoralist for me means the opposite of being a good one. I think immoralists are just considering the concept of the Master-Morality and nothing else.
2. I agree with Midgley. Today, there are lots of cultures that are mixed with different countries. When you look at every aspect, you will find that one culture will be mix with another culture. If we take on the part of the Philippine settings, you will see that every culture correspond every identity. But since we suffered colonization at the past, our cultures were being mixed by other country. Right now, we have our own culture and at the same time we also adopt and use other cultures. I remembered one of my professor said that people are just adopting and borrowing ones culture. We use other culture for our own survival and motives.
