Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Title: The Nature and Value of Rights

Author: Joel Feinberg

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

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:

1. What is the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties?
2. What is a moral worth?
3. What is duty?
4. What is Right?
5. How was the concept of Nowheresville related to duty?

Review Question:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Personal dessert means the individual deserves to get something good from others.
4. 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.

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.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Title: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Author: James Rachels

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235051686&sr=1-1

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:

1. What is Categorical Imperative?
2. What is a Good Will?
3. What do you mean by motive of duty?
4. What is Duty?
5. What is hypothetical Imperative?