Contemporary Moral Problems

CONTEMPORARY MORAL
PROBLEMS
(REVIEW)
AUTHOR:
ANGTO, SHANNON S.
THIS WORK IS LICENCED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTIONNON-

COMMERCIAL-NO DERIVATIVES WORKS 3.0 PHILIPPINES LICENCE
Contemporary Moral Problems

Page | 1
Table of Contents
Chapter I …………………………………………………………………… pp. 3-5
Chapter II ..………………………………………………………………… pp. 6-8
Chapter III ………..………………………………………………………. pp. 9-10
Chapter IV .………………………………………………………………. pp. 11-12
Chapter V ..…………………………………………………………….… pp. 13-15
Chapter VI ……………………………………………………………….. pp. 16-18
Chapter VII ………………………………………………………………. pp. 19-20
Chapter VIII ……………………………………………………………… pp. 21-22
Chapter IX …………………………………………………….…………. pp. 23-24
Chapter X ……………………………………………………….……….. pp. 25-26
Chapter XI …………………………………………………….…………. pp. 27-28
Chapter XII …………………………………………………….………... pp. 29-30
References …………………………………………………………………... p. 31

Page | 2
Chapter 1: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-

White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1
Quote: "We should consider everyone who is capable of suffering, including nonhuman animals."
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn Egoism and Moral Scepticism and the basic concepts of the different Ethical
Theories in this book.
Book Review:
“James Rachels, the distinguished American moral philosopher, was born in Columbus,
Georgia, in 1941 and graduated from Mercer University in 1962. He received his Ph.D. in 1967 from
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Rachels's best-known work is The Elements of Moral
Philosophy. It went to its fifth edition in 2007, having been revised by Rachels's son, Stuart Rachels.
Among the subjects covered are ethical and simple subjectivism, emotivism, as well as ethical and
psychological egoism, to name but a few. The text uses real-world examples to highlight points
regarding complicated philosophical principles. Rachels had a history of using such examples. The
publication in 1971 of his anthology Moral Problems marked a shift from teaching meta-ethics in
American colleges to teaching concrete practical issues. Moral Problems sold 100,000 copies over
three editions.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/James_Rachels)
James Rachels says that Psychological Egoism lets us understands that we can act
unselfishly because we are doing our action based on what we know is right for us and for others.
While Ethical Egoism is saying that everyone has its own rational self-interest and that is what is good
for them or us.
James Rachels argued that psychological egoism is false and confused. He said that it is
false because we can act in a way we can we unselfish and not self-intent. Rachels detects to place
confusions in psychological egoism because it states that you are doing things for others. Rachels
says that helping others it gives us the feeling of fulfillness and by doing that also gives us the
knowledge that we are going to have in immersing in that kind of activity.
I believe that Rachels is capable enough to teach or to write ethics and spread it to the world.
What I learned:
I learned the different concepts of the different ethical theories and psychological egoism and
Ethical Egoism.
Review Questions:
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
• Gypes is a magical being and by having it it gives them the opportunity to be more superior to the
others. That power made them dark and abusive to other people.

Page | 3
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
• Psychological Egoism is saying that we can do things and act to do things in an unselfish way.
While Ethical Egoism is saying that everyone has its own rational self-interest and that is what is good
for them or us.
• Psychological Egoism lets us understands that we can act unselfishly because we are doing our
action based on what we know is right for us and for others. While Ethical Egoism is saying that
everyone has its own rational self-interest and that is what is good for them or us. Then if we know
that this is good for us and that only means that we are only thinking ourselves.
3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how
does he reply to them?
• Rachels says that psychological egoism is false and confused. He said that it is false because we
can act in a way we can we unselfish and not self-intent. He said confused because this egoism fails
to distinguish between unselfishness and self-intention. Psychological egoism tends to see all action
of a person to be on his good advantage and they are calling that selfishness.
4. What three common place confusion does Rachels detect in this thesis of psychological egoism?
• Rachels detects to place confusions in psychological egoism because it states that you are doing
things for others and not for you but can you survive your life if you don’t do something selfishly for
yourself.
5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this argument?
• Ethical egoism is inconsistent because it is stated in the article that I is based on what the person’s
thought of being right or in other words his/her decisions are from their own rational self-interest.
Rachels doesn’t accept this argument.
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can
the egoist reply?
• We should help other said by Rachels because it gives us the feeling of fulfillness and by doing
that also gives us the knowledge that we are going to have in immersing in that kind of activity.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what
exactly is his answer?
• Fro me he did not really answered this question because he only said in what way us, humans
thinks in this world and what should we do to be moral in this world.
2. Are genuine egoist rare, as rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even
people they don’t know?
• Yes, this is rare. I think that even most of the people do things for others without even thinking that
they are thinking not only for themselves.

Page | 4
3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of
others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?
• For me it is immoral.
Integrative Questions:
1. When do we need to help others?
2. Do we Really see thing on long term pleasure?
3. When do we see it as long term or short term?
4. When do we see thing moral or immoral?
5. When will we see if we are doing the moral things in life?

Page | 5
Chapter 2: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
Quote: “I would merely be doing my part to create and maintain the sort of society which it is to my
advantage to have”
I expect to learn the impact of religion to morality in the lives of a human being.
Book Review:
He was born in Limerick, Ireland, early in the 17th century and died most likely in 1670. He
became a member of the Dominican Order in the convent of St. Stephen at Salamanca, Spain, and
taught theology in different convents of his order, especially at Salamanca, with great credit to himself
and profit to his numerous students. In 1640 he was called to the University of Coimbra as first
professor of theology, and held this chair until 1642. On the occasion of the separation of Portugal
from Spain, he was expelled for refusing to take the oath to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. He returned to the convent of St. Dominic in Lisbon, where he resided for many years
and devoted himself to the preparation of a commentary on the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas
Aquinas.
Morality according to Arthur is what the people are practicing and have in their minds since
they were born. While religion is based on the writing of people that had encountered God in their
lives. Religion is not necessary for moral motivation because we as humans had practice these moral
motivations for generations. For him, Morality is based on the needs that the religion gave to us for
guidance in life and that guidance were made institutionalized by some religions in the world. This
means that morality is inherently social in various ways where people learned their social languages.
From what I’ve read and see Arthur is a man with bad background in religion and I believe to
what he says.
What I learned:
I learned that religion is not a good basis for the morality in the society.
Review Question:
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
• Morality according to Arthur is what the people are practicing and have in their minds since they
were born. While religion is based on the writing of people that had encountered God in their lives, so
region is based on the people who had feel and talk to God or the experienced that they had with
God.
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
• Religion is not necessary for moral motivation because we as humans had practice these moral
motivations for generations and society can exist without religion but not with moral motivations.

Page | 6
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as source of moral knowledge?
• Religion is not necessary as source of moral knowledge because moral is present in all of us.
Morality is always been there around us, making us conscious about the things that we might do to
other people.
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
• Divine Command Theory is about all things is given and connected to God. All morality in the
world is made by God ad all the legislative law is from the idea of God. As a result God had
commands that are unbreakable and irreversible for us to disobey. Beyond God’s command are bad
and that is the rule and its unbreakable.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
• According to Arthur, morality is based on the needs that the religion gave to us for guidance in life
and that guidance were made institutionalized by some religions in the world to help people in the
world to have moral awareness through religion.
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this man, according to Arthur?
• Dewey says that morality is social because people in the community cannot stand to think what
others might say or think about their actions, so their actions are base on what is good for others to
see and to feel. According to Arthur, this means that morality is inherently social in various ways
where people learned their social languages.
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
• Yes, Arthur refuted the divine theory because he said that those laws are given us and its the
unbreakable and concrete laws by God. Those laws are preventing us to commit our own thoughts
beyond those commands and if we go beyond those commands then it is already considered as
wrong deeds. As result, what we are thinking and doing beyond or contrary to the divine command
theory is bad.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman
animals?
• We can have obligations to nonhuman animals because first of all we can think in a higher and ore
complex form. That ability of thinking is what made us have that moral obligation for nonhuman
animals. Morality is social because we think what will be the result of our actions not only to us but
also for the living being around us.
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class as moral education?
• Moral education from Dewey perspective is about moral is not only being taught but must be
taught. Moral thinking is about thinking what other people might think about your actions to them. Yes,
college ethics class is a moral education.
1. What is good and bad in morality?
2. Teaching morality is enough?

Page | 7
3. Is divine command theory applicable until today?
4. Is religion based on morality?
5. Morality is the standard in every community?

Page | 8
Chapter 3: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master-and-Slave-Morality
Quote: “The noble soul accepts the fact of his egoism without question, and question, and also
without consciousness”
I expect to learn what is the basis of having master and slave morality in the society.
Book Review:
“Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was a nineteenth-century German philosopher and classical

philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science,
using a distinctive German language style and displaying a fondness for metaphor and aphorism.
Nietzsche's influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and
postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth have resulted in
much commentary and interpretation, mostly in the continental tradition, and some analytic
philosophy. His key ideas include interpreting tragedy as an affirmation of life, an eternal recurrence,
a rejection of Platonism, and a repudiation of both Christianity and Egalitarianism.” (Wikipedia.
Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche)
Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society by having a superior people leading and
having the less superior people go by their rules and regulations. The more powerful and wise people
in the society are the ones who is holding the power in the government or other institutions for it to be
successful. He tend to see success is going together with power. Master-morality is being shown
when a person envy other person for his strength, knowledge, and other characteristics that made
him great. While slave-morality is when a person submits him/her self to others. Will to Power is when
a person or organization fell and has a new courage to stood up and fight and grow, and then the Will
of Power is present. The Will of Power is what makes us better and wiser to the decision that we will
make in our lives.
What I learned:
I’ve learned that from some peoples point of view power is the answer to the problem in the
society.
Review Question:
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
• Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society by having a superior people leading and having
the less superior people go by their rules and regulations. The more powerful and wise people in the
society are the ones who is holding the power in the government or other institutions for it to be
successful, while making the poor and the weak as their slaves to gain the success that they are
aiming.
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
• Injury, violence, and exploitation in Nietzsche’s view are avoidable if we can only put our will to
other so that we can have a good conduct with them.

Page | 9
3. Distinguish between master-morality and salve-morality?
• Master-morality is being shown when a person envy other person for his strength, knowledge, and
other characteristics that made him great. While slave-morality is when a person submits him/her self
to others because they feel that they have no choice and that they are weak and cannot resists the
much powerful person around them.
4. Explain the Will to Power.
• Will to Power is when a person or organization fell and has a new courage to stood up and fight
and grow, and then the Will of Power is present. The Will of Power is what makes us better and wiser
to the decision that we will make because we don’t want to have a wrong and dreadful future but
equality should be present in the process of attaining that success.
1. Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have
charge Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?
• I think that Nietzsche’s writings is just letting us see the natural way people in this world lives. I
think his writings are letting us realize that equality is somewhat impossible to attain in this world.
Those charge to Nietzsche are not justified because it is not only during the Nazism period when this
kind of mentality was present actually has been there for a long time before that event in history.
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
• “a creator of values” means that the noble person or anyone can honour him/her self because
he/she is the one who determine whatever he/she thinks is right to him/her.
1. Where did Nietzsche get his ideas about Master-and-Salve morality?
2. Is this morality/mentality still present today?
3. Is “a creator of values” good or bad?
4. Where did Nietzsche idea really originated?
5. Slave morality is bad in what way?

Page | 10
Chapter 4: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
Quote: “These tiny societies, which had often forgotten their own history, made neat, self-contained
subject for study”
I expect to learn the meaning of moral isolationism and why there is such one.
Book Review:
“Mary Midgley, née Scrutton, is an English moral philosopher. She was a Senior Lecturer in
Philosophy at Newcastle University and is known for her work on religion, science, ethics and
humankind's relationship with animals. She wrote her first book, Beast And Man: The Roots of Human
Nature (1978), when she was in her fifties. It was followed by several others, including Heart and
Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience (1981), Animals And Why They Matter (1983); Wickedness
(1984); and The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality (1994). Midgley strongly opposes
reductionist and scientistic philosophies, and is particularly concerned with attempts to make science
a substitute for the humanities, a role for which she claims it is wholly inadequate. She has written
extensively about what philosophers can learn from nature, particularly animals. A number of her
books and articles have discussed philosophical ideas appearing in popular science, including those
of Richard Dawkins. She has also written in favour of a moral interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis.”
(Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley)
Mary Midgley “moral isolationism” is when a person is only know his/her own culture and does
not know any other culture. He/she cannot judge other culture because he/she doesn’t know it the
other culture. From one of her examples Midgley pointed that culture is depends on the customes of
the country and like in Japan, the Japanese samurai custom to try their new swords to any passer by
to see if their sword is sharp enough to cut trough a human body and for me culture is very different
from everyone and we do not have the right to judge it until we get familiar to it.
What I learned:
Criticizing other culture especially if you really don’t know it is very immoral.
Review Question:
1. What is “moral isolationism”?
• “moral isolationism” is when a person is only know his/her own culture and does not know any
other culture. He/she cannot judge other culture because he/she doesn’t know it the other culture. In
other words is closing your culture on your own.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
• Tsujigiri is a Japanese samurai custom to try their new swords to any passer by to see if their
sword is sharp enough to cut trough a human body. The Japanese samurai’s were doing this because
they don’t want to fail their emperor, injure their honour, or offend his ancestors.

Page | 11
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
• According to Midgley, moral isolationism is preventing our selves from judging correctly the other
cultures because we did not really see and know what is in and about their culture.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
• Before a person can really say about something or judging about other people’s culture he/she
must live among the natives for not less than 2 weeks. After that he/she can only really say about
something about the culture o others.
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of
Nietzsche? Why or why not?
• Midgley statement about Nietzsche being immoralist is true. I think that that statement of Midgley
is accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche because Nietzsche is implying that his Master-and-
Slave-morality is irreversible and present to all cultures in the world. Nietzsche was saying that the
world has one only culture and for Midgley those kinds of people is immoral.
2. Do you agree with Midgley claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal?
Explain your answer.
• Yes, I believe that having an separate ideas and unmixed culture is unreal now a days. In the
present, most of the counties had been opened to the world and that is why more and more people
are migrating to different places in the world, thus, creating a mixed culture with mixed ideas about
their cultures differences.
1. Do we have still isolated culture he in the world?
2. Why do we need to have different cultures?
3. Why do need to open up to other cultures?
4. When is the right time to see and experience other people’s culture?
5. What good can we get if we open up to other cultures?

Page | 12
Chapter 5: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Quote: “”
I expect to learn why there are Utilitarianism here in this world.
Book Review:
“A contemporary record of Mill's studies from eight to thirteen is published in Bain's sketch of
his life. It suggests that his autobiography rather understates the amount of work done.
This intensive study however had injurious effects on Mill's mental health, and state of mind.
At the age of twenty he suffered a nervous breakdown. As explained in chapter V of his
Autobiography, this was caused by the great physical and mental arduousness of his studies which
had suppressed any feelings he might have developed normally in childhood. Nevertheless, this
depression eventually began to dissipate, as he began to find solace in the Mémoires of Jean-
François Marmontel and the poetry of William Wordsworth - his capacity for emotion resurfaced - Mill
remarking that the "cloud gradually drew off".
Mill refused to study at Oxford University or Cambridge University, because he refused to

take Anglican orders from the "white devil". Instead he followed his father to work for the British East
India Company until 1858.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Stuart_Mill)
Mill says that the principle of utility is actions or behaviours are right as long as they promote
happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Mill reply to the objection
that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine because he doesn’t believe that everything is
based on divine intervention. The higher pleasures in life from what Mill’s distinguish are the ones
about intellect, imagination, and emotion. While the lower pleasures like sexually related activities of
the human being.
What I learned:
I learned that the most important thing in this world is the pleasure that you are getting from
intelligence.
Review Question:
1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are
conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.
• The principle of utility is actions or behaviours are right as long as they promote happiness or
pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Lying and stealing can be justified in
the Principle of Utility once the doer or the person does the action had pleasure or happiness doing it,
then it is viewed to them as right actions.

Page | 13
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
• Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine because he doesn’t
believe that everything is based on divine intervention. Epicureanism just implemented it superiority
mentality over us because it made us think that all that has been done are made with divine
intervention and not by us.
3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
• The higher pleasures in life from what Mill’s distinguish are the ones about intellect, imagination,
and emotion. While the lower pleasures like sexually related activities of the human being. Higher
pleasure are better because most of the time it just came ones and its gone while the lower pleasure
can come to us by merely almost all the time that we wanted too.
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
• According to Mill, happiness must be considered to those who feel and appreciate happiness like
the animals and us. We must consider the happiness of other people because we cannot say what is
right to us is also right to them and so we must respect their views in life. We must also respect the
happiness of the animals because they also feel pain and comfort with their own kind or with us. So
considering the happiness of all the living things is really depends on what they think for them is the
source of their happiness in life.
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.
• When a person did a right thing and he felt happiness doing it, then we can say that this is right.
When a person did a wrong action but felt happiness in doing it then it still wrong not like what Mill’s
said, when you felt happiness on your action then it is already right.
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
• I think that happiness is not merely feeling pleasure but you should also feel some pain because in
life you cannot have only pleasure but at the same time you should feel that pain in attaining that
pleasure.
2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What
about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
• Mill had convinced me that his so-called higher pleasure are better than the lower ones because
as you think of it the self contentment when you accomplish your higher pleasure in life is way further.
The knowledge and the duration of the pleasure that we can get from our higher pleasure is life time
than the lower pleasure.
3. Mills says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of
utility.” Is this true or not?
• What Mill say is true, because Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate savoir and scholar of ethics of
utility. He is the one who knows what is right and wrong in this world.

Page | 14
4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of Principle of Utility is defective. Do you
agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof
so that it is not defective?
• I think in some way his Principle of Utility is defective because he is saying that even you done a
wrong thing but you felt happiness then you still committed a right thing for yourself, and for me that is
absurd.
1. What is wrong and right in life?
2. What can we consider wrong in finding happiness?
3. Is doing right things is enough o give you pleasure?
4. Is the lower pleasure in life avoidable?
5. Those pleasures in life is somewhat connected?

Page | 15
Chapter 6: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Quote: “determining the rightness of actions are considerations having to with the future”
I expect to learn what are the thing that James Rachels about Utilitarianism.
Book Review:
The first proposition is when we judge our actions base on what we know is right and wrong.
Hedonism is about pleasure and nothing is bad when your action is came from pleasure because you
just satisfying your needs as a human being. The respond of the defenders of utilitarianism to
hedonism is their two doctrines the good and the right.
Second proposition is when we think about the consequence of our action after we judge it
and thus making the right actions the greatest producers of balance of happiness over unhappiness.
Utilitarianism is about pleasure but what is good and right pleasure in a human being to have.
Third proposition is calculating the happiness and unhappiness that we felt after our action.
Justice, rights, and promises are being done because they don’t want to have scandals and riots. In
short justice, rights, and promises are done to have peace and order in the society. The act utilitarian
considers the consequences of the act while the rule utilitarian considers the consequences that
result of a rule of conduct. Utilitarianism reply to the objections by analysing first the problem, then
judge whether that action is right or not before thinking the consequence to the action made.
The third line of defense is about finding and feeling ways that we learn form our surrounding.
Nonhuman animals are just the same as we but in a lower manner of thinking. Yes, animals don’t
speak but they can feel too just like us and that is enough to give them the treatment that we get.
What I learned:
I thought that utilitarianism is flawless but it’s not.
Review Question:
1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are
they?
• The first proposition is when we judge our actions base on what we know is right and wrong.
Second proposition is when we think about the consequence of our action after we judge it and thus
making the right actions the greatest producers of balance of happiness over unhappiness. Third
proposition is calculating the happiness and unhappiness that we felt after our action.
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?
• Hedonism is about pleasure and nothing is bad when your action is came from pleasure because
you just satisfying your needs as a human being. The respond of the defenders of utilitarianism to
hedonism is their two doctrines the good and the right. Yes, utilitarianism is about pleasure but what is
good and right pleasure in a human being to have.

Page | 16
3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?
• Justice, rights, and promises are being done because they don’t want to have scandals and riots.
In short justice, rights, and promises are done to have peace and order in the society. Even a person
who is innocent must put to death just to have order in the society and that is not right. Objections
about justice, rights, and promises are more on moral imperatives.
4. Distinguish between rule-and act- utilitarianism. How does rule utilitarianism reply to the
objections?
• The act utilitarian considers the consequences of the act while the rule utilitarian considers the
consequences that result of a rule of conduct. Utilitarianism reply to the objections by analysing first
the problem, then judge whether that action is right or not before thinking the consequence to the
action made. Lastly, utilitarianism thinks about the happiness of their consequences for others.
5. What is the third line of defense?
• The third line of defense is about finding and feeling ways that we learn form our surrounding. Yes,
this defense makes us better in a sense that it triggers our self-awareness about things in our society.
1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with
utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.
• Not acceptable to me because if you don’t protect yourself from other immoral things that are
going around in your surroundings then how could you possibly see and learn different morals that
other people believes in. in short smart defense is better than to have no defense at all because at the
end of the day the only thing that matters in this world is what have you learn and apply it in your life
to be a better person.
2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered?
What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?
• I think giving consideration must not only be to those people in need but to all living thing in this
world because they are given life to live and we cannot take that away from them but rather we should
protect it and cherish it. Nonhuman animals are just the same as we but in a lower manner of thinking.
Yes, animals don’t speak but they can feel too just like us and that is enough to give them the
treatment that we get. The lakes and the streams are just the same as living being they are here in
this world just for nothing, so we should take good care of them.
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you
agree?
• I agree with Rachels, because he sees that moral consideration is different for every person. The
mistakes that we often do is that we generalize that what is good and bad is applicable to all and I
think that is wrong because we should understand deeper that person before we can say that he/she
committed a immoral action/s.
1. How does Utilitarianism works today?
2. Where can we find Utilitarianism today?
3. Why should we know Utilitarianism?

Page | 17
4. What good thus it makes if we know Utilitarianism?
5. When is the time to apply Utilitarianism to our society?

Page | 18
Chapter 7: Immanuel Kant: The Categorical imperative
Quote: “A good ill is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes”
I expect to learn the Categorical Imperatives.
Book Review:
“Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the
rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the
rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone
provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to
experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being
subsumed under pure reason.
Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond
the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and
Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about
various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day,
influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/Immanuel_Kant)
Kant’s said that for the moral proposition to be true there must be no condition tied to it
including the identity of the person and the people around him. This categorical imperative is about
isolating or disconnecting the human presence surrounding the proposition also known as perfect
duty. Kant’s account of good is about doing the right things to make other people happy and satisfied.
That good will turns to bad when it is about evil. Hypothetical imperative is about telling us what to do
in order to achieve a particular goal. The second version of categorical imperative is about imperfect
duty. The two versions of categorical imperatives are different versions because the first one tackles
the issue of the standards in the society while the second one says the uniqueness of every
individual.
What I learned:
I learned that categorical imperatives have two types and it is complete contrast between the
two.
Review Question:
1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.
• Kant’s account of good is about doing the right things to make other people happy and satisfied.
That good will turns to bad when it is about evil.
2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
• Hypothetical imperative is about telling us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal, while
categorical imperative is telling us what to do irrespective of our desires.

Page | 19
3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperatives (using the notion of a universal law), and
explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.
• Kant’s said that for the moral proposition to be true there must be no condition tied to it including
the identity of the person and the people around him. This categorical imperative is about isolating or
disconnecting the human presence surrounding the proposition also known as perfect duty. This
categorical imperatives set to have good effect to us and for others if we made our duties
disconnected to us and to others.
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end),
and explain it.
• The second version of categorical imperative is about imperfect duty. The means justify the end
but being imperfect person or human beings we commit false or bad things in life.
1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or
are they different rules? Defend your review.
• The two versions of categorical imperatives are different versions because the first one tackles the
issue of the standards in the society while the second one says the uniqueness of every individual.
2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you
agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.
• Yes, I agree with Kant because what is the use of your action if it is not leading to goodness not
only for you but also for the sake of the others.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be
used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?
• Well I thin the first categorical imperative is such general to all that it may fit to nonmoral or
immoral actions of a human person and that is depends of course to the person’s own knowledge of
morality.
1. What is duty?
2. What is good will to us?
3. What is the importance of knowing the first and second versions of categorical imperative?
4. Can we really define what is good will to all?
5. Is finding and doing your duty as a person is enough?

Page | 20
Chapter 8: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue
Quote: “since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue, we must consider the
nature of virtue.”
I expect to learn what happiness to Aristotle is.
Book Review:
“Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical science, i.e., one mastered by doing rather than
merely reasoning. Further, Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge (such as
metaphysics or epistemology) but is general knowledge. He wrote several treatises on ethics,
including most notably, Nichomachean Ethics, in which he outlines what is commonly called virtue
ethics.
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in
so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that man
must have a function uncommon to anything else, and that this function must be an activity of the
soul. Aristotle identified the best activity of the soul as eudaimonia: a happiness or joy that pervades
the good life. Aristotle taught that to achieve the good life, one must live a balanced life and avoid
excess. This balance, he taught, varies among different persons and situations, and exists as a
golden mean between two vices - one an excess and one a deficiency.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved
Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/Aristotle#Ethics)
Happiness for Aristotle is about virtue. He chooses virtue because it can instil in our lives
even if we are still young. Aristotle explain moral virtue as the happiness that everyone is looking for.
One person can get happiness if he/she is being respected by his/her workmates in their office.
Aristotle characterizes life as a beast because we are humans and we are capable in doing things
that we wanted to do.
What I learned:
I learned that happiness is virtue for Aristotle.
Review Question:
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How much is it related to virtue? How is it related to
pleasure?
• Happiness for Aristotle is about virtue. He chooses virtue because it can instil in our lives even if
we are still young. Virtue for Aristotle is being taught from the moment we were born and that what
makes him sees it to be the real happiness in life.
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.
• Aristotle explain moral virtue as the happiness that everyone is looking for. One person can get
happiness if he/she is being respected by his/her workmates in their office.

Page | 21
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot
be happy?
• Yes, I think that everyone has their own meaning of happiness. Yes, everyone is unique and we
can never say that what we have the same meaning and description of happiness.
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with
a life of pleasure?
• Aristotle characterizes life as a beast because we are humans and we are capable in doing things
that we wanted to do. Yes, we can commit false and bad actions and that is why Aristotle classified or
named us humans as beast. Life can have wrong pleasures but we can change it for better or for
worst.
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier that anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree
or not?
• Aristotle and the other philosopher will be happier because we humans are learning what they
think is the right way to see pleasure and morality in life.
1. Why does Aristotle see happiness as a virtue?
2. Is doing virtue to others is enough?
3. When we know that were doing the right virtue?
4. Will virtue answer the questions and problems here in the world?
5. Why does Aristotle sees us as a beast not a human?

Page | 22
Chapter 9: Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights
Quote: “One should be happy that they ever treat us well”
I expect to learn nature and value of rights and the importance of values in the society.
Book Review:
“Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 - March 29, 2004) was an American political and social
[1]
philosopher. He is known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state.
Feinberg helped in shaping the American legal landscape.
Feinberg studied at the University of Michigan, writing his dissertation on the philosophy of
the Harvard professor Ralph Barton Perry under the supervision of Charles Stevenson. He taught at
Brown University, Princeton University, UCLA and Rockefeller University, and at the University of
Arizona, where he retired in 1994 as Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law.
Feinberg was internationally distinguished for his research in moral, social and legal
philosophy. His major four volume work, The Moral Limits of Criminal Law, was published between
1984 and 1988. Feinberg held many major fellowships during his career and lectured by invitation at
universities around the world. He was an esteemed and highly successful teacher, and many of his
students are now prominent scholars and professors at universities across the country.” (Wikipedia.
Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/Joel_Feinberg)
Nowheresville has two views; first, what is distinctive about rights is that they enable people to
make claims. The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties assert that the person rights
are linked with duties and other people. Second, rights are valuable because the ability to make
claims is necessary for self-respect. To have claim-rights you must have duties to perform. Feinberg
explains that personal desert is kind of fittingness of one to other people or party. This will result to
praising to you by other people.
What I learned:
I learned that rights are very important not only because we need it but it gives us security
and discipline.
Review Question:
1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this would different from our world?
• Nowheresville has two views; first, what is distinctive about rights is that they enable people to
make claims. Second, rights are valuable because the ability to make claims is necessary for self-
respect. The real world don’t know when will they the distinct difference between the right and claims
of the people.

Page | 23
2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on
this doctrine?
• The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties assert that the person rights are linked
with duties and other people. To have claim-rights you must have duties to perform. For Feinberg this
means to him that all people can have the same right and duties according to their class.
3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in
Nowheresville?
• Feinberg explains that personal desert is kind of fittingness of one to other people or party. This
will result to praising to you by other people. Personal desert works in Nowheresville by giving
importance to what other people and giving rights and duties to them.
4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly? How would this work in Nowheresville
according to Feinberg?
• Notion of a sovereign right-monopoly is having our own personal rights and duties as person.
Sovereign right-monopoly will work in Nowheresville by saying and thinking our own rights and duties
to fulfil and by doing so we can have our own Nowheresville.
Discussion Question:
1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
• Yes, he did make a convincing case of importance of rights especially individual rights. He made a
convincing case because he gave me more ideas about giving importance to our rights and duties.
2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?
• Claim-right is giving and having the right that is due to the person if and only if he/she is in the
position.
1. What is right?
2. When do we know we did or duties?
3. When will be that right considered as wrong?
4. Is Nowheresville is still alive theses days?
5. Where can we find Nowheresville today?

Page | 24
Chapter 10: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Quote: “institution requires an act of faith on the part of the minorities”
I expect to learn why rights are needed to be taught and be taken seriously by us.
Book Review:
“Ronald Dworkin, QC, FBA (born December 11, 1931) is an American legal philosopher,
currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University
School of Law, and former professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford. He is known for his
contributions to legal philosophy and political philosophy. His theory of law as integrity is one of the
leading contemporary views of the nature of law.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/Ronald_Dworkin)
Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense is that we need to see moral rights in a serious
sense. This sense are protected by the U.S. constitution or the law and the law is the one who is the
one who will protect us to the immoral things that might happen to us by other people. The first model
is about balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society. The first model is
indefensible. The second model is abridging a right as much more serious as inflating one. From what
I understand Dworkin chose the first model. Legal rights are based on the perspective of few people
who thinks and says what they think is right and it is concrete and cannot be change except if the
congress does so, while moral rights depends on each and every person. The two important ideas
behind the institution of rights are the political and social. Moral rights that are not legal rights are like
when going to church every Sunday and praising the lord even if you do not attend mass you won’t be
held for a crime.
What I learned:
I learned that rights are should be taken for because it is the only protection that we can get
from the state and for ourselves.
Review Question:
1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by
the U.S. Constitution?
• Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense is that we need to see moral rights in a serious sense.
This sense are protected by the U.S. constitution or the law and the law is the one who is the one who
will protect us to the immoral things that might happen to us by other people.
2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral
rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.
• Legal rights are based on the perspective of few people who thinks and says what they think is
right and it is concrete and cannot be change except if the congress does so, while moral rights
depends on each and every person. Legal rights that are not moral rights are like killing a person for
his crime. Moral rights that are not legal rights are like when going to church every Sunday and
praising the lord even if you do not attend mass you won’t be held for a crime.
Page | 25
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the right of its citizens? Which does
Dworkin find more attractive?
• The first model is about balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society.
The first model is indefensible. The second model is about more familiar idea of political equality. The
second model is abridging a right as much more serious as inflating one. From what I understand
Dworkin chose the first model.
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
• The two important ideas behind the institution of rights is the political and social.
1. Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?
• Every person has the right to break the law but he/she must be prepared to meet the
consequences of his/her actions.
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
• I think that rights are different from Mill’s utilitarianism because rights is more democratic while
utilitarianism is more on one ruler.
3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not?
• I think Kant will accept the right in the strong sense
1. What is the law?
2. To what extent the law is applicable?
3. When will we know that we disobeyed the law?
4. What is the baseline before committing a crime?
5. What is right to the law?

Page | 26
Chapter 11: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Quote: “distinguish between those aspects of the social system that define and secure the equal
liberties of citizenship”
I expect to learn more about justice in this chapter.
Book Review:
”In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to reconcile liberty and equality in a principled way,
offering an account of "justice as fairness." Central to this effort is his famous approach to the
seemingly intractable problem of distributive justice.
Rawls appeals to the social contract. What principles of justice would we agree to if we
desired to cooperate with others, but would also prefer more of the benefits, and less of the burdens,
associated with cooperation? Justice as fairness is thus offered to people who are neither saintly
altruists nor greedy egoists. Human beings are, as Rawls puts it, both rational and reasonable.
Because we are rational we have ends we want to achieve, but we are reasonable insofar as we are
happy to achieve these ends together if we can, in accord with mutually acceptable regulative
principles. But given how different our needs and aspirations often are, how can we find principles
that are acceptable to each of us? Rawls gives us a model of a fair situation for making this choice
(his argument from the original position and the famous veil of ignorance), and he argues that two
principles of justice would be especially attractive.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Rawls#A_Theory_of_Justice)
This principle ensures that with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life
chances, and those inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. I think that this
kind of priority is cannot be sacrificed because it makes the inequalities gone. The first principle
allows people to do whatever they want because we have equal rights and liberties. For me people
can do whatever they want for, as they don’t hurt other people. I think pornography is some kind of
hurting other people.
What I learned:
I’ve learned that justice is made really to make us safe not only for those people in the
government.
Review Question:
1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.
• Original position is giving and doing
2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice
• Rawls’s first principle of justice states that everyone must have equal claims on right and liberties.

Page | 27
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be
sacrificed?
• This principle ensures that with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life
chances, and those inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. I think that this
kind of priority is cannot be sacrificed because it makes the inequalities gone.
1. On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long
as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for other. What does this allow people to do? Does it
mean, for examples, that people have a right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t
interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s
freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?
• The first principle allows people to do whatever they want because we have equal rights and
liberties. For me people can do whatever they want for, as they don’t hurt other people. I think
pornography is some kind of hurting other people. I think taking drugs is a kind of hurting not the
others but yourself and it is bad for me.
2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles
than those given by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth
and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather
than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?
• Yes, I think even rational people can agree with different principles by Rawls. If they don’t agree
with equal distribution of the wealth because not all the people is doing their job to earn. They don’t
want to apply socialism because they don’t want to level their status with other people and s o that
they can have a more wealthy and prosperous life than others. I think the two are almost the same.
1. What is capitalism?
2. What is rational person doing in this world?
3. Why do we need to have equality?
4. Do equality promote goodness or not?
5. When does equality should apply?

Page | 28
Chapter 12: Annette Baier: The Need For More Than Justice
Quote: “One might say that liberty and equality are being found inadequate without fratenity”
I expect to learn what is ethical and nonethical in the justice system.
Book Review:
“Annette Baier (née Stoop) (born 1929) is a well-known moral philosopher and Hume scholar,
focusing in particular on Hume's moral psychology. For most of her career she taught in the
philosophy department at the University of Pittsburgh, having moved there from Carnegie Mellon
University. She retired to her native Dunedin, New Zealand, where she graduated from the University
of Otago. She is also well known for her contributions to feminist philosophy and to the philosophy of
mind, where she was strongly influenced by her former colleague, Wilfrid Sellars. Her husband is the
philosopher Kurt Baier.
She is a former President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, an office
reserved for the elite of her profession. Baier received an honorary Doctor of Literature from the
University of Otago in 1999. In October 2007, Baier was ranked 72nd in a list of "Top 100 living
geniuses" compiled by The Daily Telegraph.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/Annette_Baier)
Justice is given to us the state and develops by other humans like us who sees to protect the
interest of our well being. We need to know and renew and apply those values of the past to our
present. We do not need to abandoned the old ones we only to rethink it and apply it if needed. The
wrong thing about Kantian extends that equal rights to all ration beings including women and
minorities is that they over extend it and did not put boundaries to it. I think he would say that is only
right to have equal rights to all.
What I learned:
I learned that ethics are way further the reach of justice.
Review Question:
1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspective. According to Gilligan, how do these
perspectives develop?
• Justice is given to us the state and develops by other humans like us who sees to protect the
interest of our well being, while care perspective is being given to us by our loves in life. These
perspectives develop throughout the years as you grow up.
2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticism do Gilligan and Baier make of
this theory?
• Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is about religion, while Gilligan and Baier is based on
morals in the society.

Page | 29
3. Baier says there are important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are
these differences?
• Kantian liberals is more about freedom of choice while his critics is about religions.
4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?
• Baier attact the Kantian view of reason because it is based on freedom to choose, so not everyone
can choose from themselves because not all can have a good decision in life.
1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of our patriarchal
past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon the old values of justice,
freedom, and rights?
• We need to know and renew and apply those values of the past to our present. We do not need to
abandoned the old ones we only to rethink it and apply it if needed.
2. What is wrong with Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women
and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?
• The wrong thing about Kantian extends that equal rights to all ration beings including women and
minorities is that they over extend it and did not put boundaries to it. I think he would say that is only
right to have equal rights to all. For me yes it is right to have equality but it should have limitations.
3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice, Granted, we do not choose
our parents, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very
important?
• Yes, we don’t have many choices in this life but we can make choices in this life by creating it.
1. What is right?
2. Is equality good?
3. When to have equality?
4. Does right apply to equality?
5. Is rational being good or not?

Page | 30
References
• White, J.E.(2003) Contemporary Moral Problems. Belmont,CA

• Nationmaster.com. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009,
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Rachels
• Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/

Page | 31

Contemporary Moral Problems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Moral Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTEMPORARY MORAL

THIS WORK IS LICENCED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTIONNON-