Contemporary Moral Problems

Transcription

1 2009 Contemporary Moral Problems An Ethics Reader Kathleen Tang ITETHIC SY This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License. Professor: Paul Pajo

2 . Table of Contents JAMES RACHELS... 3 EGOISM AND MORAL SCEPTICIM... 3 John Arthur... 7 Religion Morality and Conscience... 7 Friedrich Nietzsche Master- and Slave- Morality Mary Midgley Trying out One s New Sword John Arthur Religion Morality and Conscience James Rachels The Debate Over Utilitarianism Immanuel Kant The Categorical Imperative Aristotle Happiness and virtue Joel Feinberg The Nature and Value of Rights Ronald Dworkin Taking Rights Seriously John Rawls A Theory of Justice Annette Baier The Need for More than Justice Kathleen Tang Page 2

3 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES JAMES RACHELS EGOISM AND MORAL SCEPTICIM Learning Expectations: Quote: As the title of the chapter suggests, I expect to see an insight of those who are negative about morality. Maybe a view about morality in a non-conventional manner. I expect to learn about the positive and negative side of egoism and its effect on the society. From the word ego, this may include morality in the standpoint against egoism. Egotistic people are not really morally correct, so I assume this chapter will include views against these kind of people. ON THIS VIEW, EVEN WHEN MEN ARE ACTING IN WAYS APPARENTLY CALCULATED TO BENEFIT OTHERS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY THE BELIEF THAT ACTING IN THIS WAY IS TO THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE, AND IF THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THIS, THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING THAT ACTION. Review: In the first part of the chapter, Rachels recall the Legend of Gyges where he pointed out how two kinds of men, one who is good and one who is not so good would probably do the same hing if under a cloak of invisibility. This is where egoism was born. It is when people started saying that people only care about themselves and are only after achieving their selfinterests. He then described this egoism into two parts: psychological and ethical. Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do and when they do act in ways that can benefit others, it is with the belief that they can benefit from doing that act. Ethical egoism on the other hand is the more normative or straight out form of egoism. It states how men ought to act and that is not minding anyone else s interests but theirs. Kathleen Tang Page 3

4 There were also three confusions in egoism that was discussed in the chapter. The first is the confusion of selfishness with self-interest. It is often confused because of the relation to one s self. Selfish behavior is behavior that ignores the interests of others, in circumstances in which their interests ought not to be ignored. Self-interest is on the other hand, almost the same as selfishness although without ignoring others in circumstances that they should not be ignored. The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from selfinterest or from other-regarding motives. The third confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. Learning Insights: Egoism started way back during Plato s time. Self-interest and selfishness are not one and the same thing. Genuine egoists are very rare. Integrative Questions: 1. What is the difference between selfishness and self-interest? 2. From what book was the Legend of Gyges from. 3. What are the reasons given why one should not harm and should help? 4. What is ethical altruism? 5. Is egoism consistent or not? Why? Review Questions: 1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story? The legend of Gyges is recalled by Glaucon in Plato s book Republic. It was about a shepherd called Gyges who found a ring that can make anyone who wears it invisible. Gyges of course did the most obvious thing that anyone would. He went out into the palace and killed the king and seduced the queen and took over the king s place. It was a very selfish act. The question about morality that was questioned in this story was that if there were two of such rings, what would happen if you give it to a virtuous man and a rogue man. How different would their reactions be? And Glaucon said that both would the same and this is because of the fact that they have been both granted of reprisal. Since they are invisible, no one can see them. So they are given the chance to act without evidence. 2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do and when they do act in ways that can benefit others, it is with the belief that they can benefit from Kathleen Tang Page 4

5 doing that act. Ethical egoism on the other hand is the more normative or straight out form of egoism. It states how men ought to act and that is not minding anyone else s interests but theirs. 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first argument goes as follows. If we describe one person s action as selfish, and another person s action as unselfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do. The second argument for psychological egoism is this. Since so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent,2 and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. Therefore, the action is unselfish only at a superficial level of analysis. Rachels argues that these arguments are not true. He says that a person can act on what he wants or only his self-interest. But what if the self-interest of a person is to simple help others? This is what being unselfish is exactly. 4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? The first is the confusion of selfishness with self-interest. It is often confused because of the relation to one s self. Selfish behavior is behavior that ignores the interests of others, in circumstances in which their interests ought not to be ignored. Self-interest is on the other hand, almost the same as selfishness although without ignoring others in circumstances that they should not be ignored. The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. The third confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. 5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn't Rachels accept that argument? There is no way to maintain the doctrine of ethical egoism as a consistent view about how we ought to act. We will fall into inconsistency whenever we try. He doesn t accept this argument because an egoist can be predictable because of one common thing that they have it is that they want to live in a world where they can maximize their self-interest. And that in itself is consistent. 6. According to Rachels, why shouldn't we hurt others, and why should we help other? How can the egoist reply? The reason one ought not to do actions that would hurt other people is: other people would be hurt. The reason one ought to do actions that would benefit other people is: other people would be benefited. Kathleen Tang Page 5

6 Discussion Questions: 1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, Why be moral? If so, what exactly is his answer? Yes, he answered this through stating the reasons why we shouldn t hurt others and why we should help others. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don't know? I believe that genuine egoists are truly rare as Rachels says because in my eighteen years of living on this planet, I can see that people who help still govern. The good side is still winning. So I guess it really is a fact that most people care about other people even granted the fact that they don t know each other. 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 I don t think it is immoral or moral because it really depends on what a person s self interests are. For as long as you do not advocate to hurting others or getting to you self-interest while harming other people along the way, then I guess it is still okay. Kathleen Tang Page 6

7 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES John Arthur Religion Morality and Conscience Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn about religion and its connection to moral knowledge. I want to know what is the difference of how you see right and wrong in religious ways or otherwise. It would be nice to know if morality is rooted from religion. SO HAVEN T WE THEN IDENTIFIED A LIMITATION ON GOD S POWER, SINCE HE NOW, BEING A GOOD GOD, MUST LOVE KINDNESS AND COMMAND US NOT TO BE CRUEL? WITHOUT THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS LEFT OF GOD S OMNIPOTENCE? Review: This chapter is basically about religion and its connection to morality. It covered different areas of the relation and the disconnection between the two. According to Arthur, religion is separate from morality. He exemplified this because people have the notion that it is necessary to know religion before you can know morality. In this chapter he tries to deviate from this idea even to the point of refuting the divine command theory. He said that morality is learned even without religion and that religion will just complicate everything. You will have to learn about different doctrines and distinguish which one is right or wrong. According to Dewey, morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others, and governs our interactions with others in society. But it also demands, as Dewey put it, that we know with others, envisioning for ourselves what their points of view would require along with our own. Conscience demands we occupy the positions of others. He even refuted the divine command theory by telling everybody that they should not believe in it. That people should not believe in a God who is the only authorized person to say what is right or wrong. This kind of people lack faith in God. Surely what is right and wrong is not Kathleen Tang Page 7

8 bluntly stated in the Bible but the Bible itself builds our own instinct of right and wrong. Therefore, it is right to say that inherently what is right and wrong comes from God s words. Learning Insights: Morality and religion are two separate things. Religion is not necessary to know morality Moral education is best done when you can imagine when one thing is wrong or right Morality is social Integrative Questions: 1. How is religion set apart from morality? 2. Why is moral education best with the imagination? 3. Why does Arthur refute the divine command theory? 4. How is morality social? 5. Why do they separate morality with religion? Review Questions: 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? Morality involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights, and obligations. Religion typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms, and authoritative texts. 2. Why isn't religion necessary for moral motivation? We were raised to be a decent person, and that s what we are period. Behaving fairly and treating others well is more important than whatever we might gain from stealing or cheating, let alone seriously harming another person. This means that we don t have to really have religion to know how to distinguish from right or wrong. As civilized people we are trained to act in an acceptable manner. 3. Why isn't religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? This argument fails because first of all there are many revelations under God and which one do we choose to believe, those revelations, or historical events, or both? It will be a difficult task just to categorize it. Another thing is that there are several religions out there and we would then have to ask what is the right one. 4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? Kathleen Tang Page 8

9 The divine command theory says that only God and God himself can dictate what is right and wrong and that is the only right and wrong there is. Arthur rejects this theory because of what it implies. Suppose we were to grant (just for the sake of argument) that the divine command theory is correct, so that actions are right just because they are commanded by God. The same, of course, can be said about those deeds that we believe are wrong. If God hadn t commanded us not to do them, they would not be wrong. 5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? First, of course, we should note the historical influence religions have had on the development of morality as well as on politics and law. The relationship is not, however, onesided: morality has also influenced religion. Not only are religious and moral practices and understandings historically linked, but for many religious people the relationship extends to the personal level to their understanding of moral obligations as well as their sense of who they are and their vision of who they wish to be. 6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? Morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others, and governs our interactions with others in society. But it also demands, as Dewey put it, that we know with others, envisioning for ourselves what their points of view would require along with our own. Conscience demands we occupy the positions of others. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? Yes, he refuted the divine command theory by telling everybody that they should not believe in it. That people should not believe in a God who is the only authorized person to say what is right or wrong. This kind of people lack faith in God. Surely what is right and wrong is not bluntly stated in the Bible but the Bible itself builds our own instinct of right and wrong. Therefore, it is right to say that inherently what is right and wrong comes from God s words. 2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals? Animals have been a part of our lives since the world began. And we have socialized with animals even though we don t share the same language we have spent our lives having a personal relationship with animals. Most of these relationships are mutual and are still considered social. So that is how we have a responsibility with animals. 3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education? It can be considered as a means of education about morality but according to Dewey, the only way you can really learn about it is by imagination. In a way it s like you re conscience. Kathleen Tang Page 9

10 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES Friedrich Nietzsche Master- and Slave- Morality Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn a crucial and a very powerful explanation fo the slave and master morality that has been applied during earlier times like Nazism. It must include how a master thinks and how a slave thinks and how one person can end up being a slave or a master. I also want to know the notion of the master why they ever thought slavery was just and correct. I want to learn what pleasure they earn when they see someone fearing them. EVERYWHERE SLAVE-MORALITY GAINS ASCENDANCY, LANGUAGE SHOWS A TENDENCY TO APPROXIMATE THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS GOOD AND STUPID. Review: It is quite simple to understand what Nietzsche's arguments are. It is only hard to understand because his work was German in original form and it was translated in words that are hard to comprehend. But when you you read it, you'll be able to see that it is quite easy to understand. Who wouldn't know what a master and a slave is, right? To Nietzsche, life should allow people to practice their "will to power" and keep those inferior where they are. It is to keep them afraid and exploited. He said that with this, a society can be healthy. His words might sound too agressive and to overpowering. He advocates Marxism and he wants the weak ones to suffer. He against equality. His view of a healthy society is horrible. He is a very brutal man and his arguments can definitely provoke other people to do dangerous things. It is not a rational theory. Kathleen Tang Page 10

11 His views were very hard to understand. He said, to refrain from mutual injury, mutual violence, mutual exploitation, to equate one s will with that of another, is nihilistic. It is a denial of life. As a principle of society, it is a principle of dissolution and decay. He also said that, Exploitation pertains to the essence of the living thing as a fundamental organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic will to power which is precisely the will to life." This is what he believe in and this is his view on the following. For him, the life of a person naturally involves injury, violence and exploitation and you can only belong either to the one's who do it to others or the one being done unto. Learning Insights: Nietzsche might have inspired Nazism. Slave morality is often connected to Christian morality. Master morality wants the weak ones to fear. Slave morality inspires a person not to fear. Integrative Questions: 1. What is slave morality? 2. What is master morality? 3. What is will to power? 4. What is Nietzsche's overman? How does he describe him? 5. Does Nietzsche refute weakness? Why? Review Questions: 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as distinguished from slave-morality that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and love. 2. What is Nietzsche's view of injury, violence, and exploitation? He said, to refrain from mutual injury, mutual violence, mutual exploitation, to equate one s will with that of another, is nihilistic. It is a denial of life. As a principle of society, it is a principle of dissolution and decay. He also said that, Exploitation pertains to the essence of the living thing as a fundamental organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic will to power which is precisely the will to life." This is what he believe in and this is his view on the following. For him, the life of a person naturally involves injury, violence and exploitation and Kathleen Tang Page 11

12 you can only belong either to the one's who do it to others or the one being done unto. 3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality? According to Nietzsche, slave morality takes certain typical characteristics of the lowest order and master morality In slave morality, good means tending to ease suffering and evil means tending to inspire fear. Nietzsche believes that slave morality is expressed in the standard moral systems. master morality on the other hand, disucesses the opposite. Master morality is to inspire fear. to inflict injury and exploitation to others. 4. Explain the Will to Power. According to Nietzsche the goal of Will to Power is essentially engaged in the preservation and enhancement of itself: The Will wills itself. Thus the Will to Power is essentially an activity of interpreting aimed at preserving and enhancing life itself. This is Nietzsche's notion of Will to Power. Discussion Questions: 1. Some people view Nietzsche's writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not? It is understandable for people to think of it in this manner. Nietzschee does use big words and use them to divide further the superior from the inferior. They may think it inspired Nazism because his maser morality takes account on inspiring fear to the weak ones. He believes that life revolves on the master who dictates everything and inflicts pain on those who don't follow and the the slaves who have no choice but to accept the suffering the master puts on them. 2. What does it mean to be a creator of values? To be a creartor of values is Nietzsche's overman or in other terms his superman. It is his heroic individualism that makes a person an overman. He will be the creator of master morality and the likes. Kathleen Tang Page 12

13 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES Mary Midgley Trying out One s New Sword Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn about Midgley's view on a different side of morality. Simply like being in someone else's shoes. I expect it to include how other people in different cultures and customs view morality and how do they practice it. I hope that she also covers a comparison between different cultures and how morality is obtained in them. I want to see how it is like to see roght in wrong in different cultures, religions, races and countries. It would be nice to see the differences and similiraties of the various customs of other countries other than those who area morally accepted in the Western civilization. SO MORALLY, AS WELL AS PHYSICALLY, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD, AND WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE IN IT. Review: Midgley had some very strong arguments in this chapter. Generally the idea is to revoke moral isolation. Moral isolation is the belief of anthropologists that people cannot criticize other customs or cultures that they don't belong to. To Midgley, the idea deprives us of moral reasoning and judgment.it was an agressive take on the simple idea. According to Midgley, Moral Isolationism consists in simply denying that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgements about it. She gave a perfect example in the form of a Japanese custom called tsujigiri. This tradition, practiced by the samurai warriors of Japan, called for testing out new swords on passing wayfarers or travelers. For a samurai to succeed in battle, his sword must be able to slice though someone in a single swing, passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly, in combat, the warrior would lose his honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his ancestors. She asked several questions about it but the general idea is, what would it involve for us to be able to extend our knowledge and understanding to all cultures and their customs? Kathleen Tang Page 13

14 According to Midgley, moral isolationism is false. She argues that it is possible for us to be able to understand other cultures and traditions because we already are doing it. It would be unfair for anthropologists to suggest moral isolationism to everyone because then we would be deprived of the right to share our views and intellectual understanding of different societies. We would not be able to note the ones with great and rich cultures. The bottom line was that Midgley suggests that we can criticize other cultures beacuse we are already able to define moral judgments. If we can criticize our own society and culture then we can use the same standards or the same manner in criticizeing other customs. Learning Insights: Anthropologists advocated moral isolation. Tsujigiri is a japanese custom for new swords of Samurais. There are people who believe that our cultures are separated and unmixed. Moral isolation is the belief of anthropologists that people cannot criticize other customs or cultures that they don't belong to. Integrative Questions: 1. What is moral isolation according to anthropologists? 2. What is moral isolation according to Midgley? 3. What is tsujigiri? 4. How does moral isolation deprive us of moral judgment? 5. Is it possible for us to understand different cultures and customs that we don't belong to? How? Review Questions: 1. What is moral isolationism? According to Midgley, Moral Isolationism consists in simply denying that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgements about it. 2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? This tradition, practiced by the samurai warriors of Japan, called for testing out new swords on passing wayfarers or travelers. For a samurai to succeed in battle, his sword must be able to slice though someone in a single swing, passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly, in combat, the warrior would lose his honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his ancestors. She asked several questions about it but the general idea is, what would it involve for us to be able to extend our knowledge and understanding to all cultures and their customs? Kathleen Tang Page 14

15 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? According to Midgley, moral isolationism is false. She argues that it is possible for us to be able to understand other cultures and traditions because we already are doing it. It would be unfair for anthropologists to suggest moral isolationism to everyone because then we would be deprived of the right to share our views and intellectual understanding of different societies. We would not be able to note the ones with great and rich cultures. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? Midgley suggests that we can criticize other cultures beacuse we are already able to define moral judgments. If we can criticize our own society and culture then we can use the same standards or the same manner in criticizeing other customs. Discussion Questions: 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nitezsche? Why or why not? I don't think it is fair for Midgley to say that Nietzsche is an immoralist. First of all, if Nietzsche was an immoralist, then he would have never written a book about morality. Morality may be perceived as relative to different people, just as customs are relative to each country. Nietzsche might advocate to values which seem immoral to many. but what is important is that he has his own set of values. He actually thinks that something is moral, whatever it may be. 2. Do you agree with Midgley's claim that the idea of separate and unmixed culture is unreal? Explain your answer. I agree at some of her points but I don't agree entirely. Midgley is right to say that all cultures are different and cannot be mixed. But it is true also that there are a lot of differences with the world's cultures. Her idea can be accepted because she right that there is ony one world and we all have to live in it. So basically, we are all in the same position. I guess she's just trying to justify that we should not separate cultures and forbid ourselves of moral reasoning or criticism. Kathleen Tang Page 15

16 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES John Arthur Religion Morality and Conscience Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn about the concept of Utilitarian doctrine. I want to know why some people become hedonists and why some people oppose this theory. I want to see the pros and cons of this theory pointed out in the chapter. TO DO AS YOU WOULD BE DONE BY, AND TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, CONSTITUTE THE IDEAL PERFECTION OF UTILITARIAN MORALITY. Review: Mill has pretty strong arguments on this doctrine. He believes that men should act in such a way that that action may be turned into a universal command. I don t think it will always be possible to do that. But then again, he has some good points in the chapter. Like when he said that happiness is not necessarily attaining pleasure and absence of pain. Happiness, according to Mill, is desiring something because it is close to an end. This means that you can achieve happiness when a certain event or thing has ended and you have attained that state where you can be happy. It is not merely pleasure because of desiring something like music, movies, money or whatever. Speaking of pleasures, he also said things about dividing pleasure into higher ones and lower ones. According to Mill, roughly, higher pleasures involve the use of the intellect, whereas lower pleasures involve the senses. The higher pleasures are better than the lower pleasures, Mill argues, because the person who has experienced both will prefer the higher pleasures. He also gave insights on the Epicureans. Mill gives a fair argument on this doctrine. He says that it is unfair for others agains Epicurus doctrine to say that pleasure is only for swine. Beasts have a different level of pleasure with compare to human beings and it is not fair to say that humans are not capable of pleasure. Contrary to this, he also says that the epicureans are Kathleen Tang Page 16

17 indeed at fault when they do not mention the pleasure of the intellect and other more important human being values. They only made it particular to those of physical pleasures. In this, it is the fault of the Epicureans. Learning Insights: The golden rule exemplifies the morality of Utilitarianism. There are two kinds of pleasure. The majority rules in Utilitarian doctrine. Some people are opposing to Mill s arguments. Integrative Questions: 1. What is Epicureanism? What is its connection to Utilitarian doctrine? 2. How did Mill prove the Principle of Utility? 3. How did he distinguish between higher and lower pleasure? 4. What is his stand on pleasure and absence of pain? 5. What is happiness, according to Mill? Review Questions: 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 that an act must be for the good of all. If you do something it must be possible for it to become a universal law. This can justify that if someone makes a lying promise, it should be converted to universal law. If he has to lie in that situation, then everybody who enters in that situation should also lie. In stealing for example, if somebody steals food for their family to survive hunger, it can be allowed because an act-utilitarian would consider the person s predicament. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine? Mill gives a fair argument on this doctrine. He says that it is unfair for others against Epicurus doctrine to say that pleasure is only for swine. Beasts have a different level of pleasure with compare to human beings and it is not fair to say that humans are not capable of pleasure. Contrary to this, he also says that the epicureans are indeed at fault when they do not mention the pleasure of the intellect and other more important human being values. They only made it particular to those of physical pleasures. In this, it is the fault of the Epicureans. 3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasure? According to Mill, roughly, higher pleasures involve the use of the intellect, whereas lower pleasures involve the senses. The higher pleasures are better than the lower pleasures, Mill argues, because the person who has experienced both will prefer the higher pleasures. Kathleen Tang Page 17

18 4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? The happiness of the greater number of people should be considered. The principle of utilitarianism is to give the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. This means that the majority must always be pleased by your actions. 5. Carefully reconstruct Mill's proof of the Principle of Utility. Mill states that the Principle of Utility may only be proved by way of desire. He argues that every man has a desire and that every man wants to attain this desire. The mere fact that they wish for this is that they want to reach happiness through achieving this. Discussion Questions: 1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think? I don t think it is. Happiness, according to Mill, is desiring something because it is close to an end. This means that you can achieve happiness when a certain event or thing has ended and you have attained that state where you can be happy. It is not merely pleasure because of desiring something like music, movies, money or whatever. 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 pleasure over the higher ones? It really differs in every person. Everybody has their own intellect and will to choose. If one person chooses to have pleasure that to you is the lesser one, it doesn t necessarily mean that it is not the higher pleasure for him. 3. Mill says, In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of ethics of utility. Is it true or not? It is possible. I think that the golden rule aims to achieve that a man must act in whatever way every other man should act when in that situation. 4. Many commentators have thought that Mill's proof of the 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 is not defective? I guess the real mistake here is that he doesn t take on the individuality of a person. He sees everybody as the same person and expect the people to like the same things. He assumes that what makes one man happy can make all men happy. At least that s what he s trying to impose. Kathleen Tang Page 18

19 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES James Rachels The Debate Over Utilitarianism Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn about the many objections on utilitarianism and how the utilitarian theorists responded and defended their sides. IN SOME INSTANCES WE WILL NOT TREAT EVERYONE ALIKE; BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT JUST MEMBERS OF AN INDIFFERENTIATED CROWD. Review: James Rachels, who is also against the theory of egoism and skepticism, now takes on Mill s utilitarianism. He first suggested that first, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences and nothing else matters. Second, he said that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness is caused. And third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else s. This account is very credible and it clearly defines his firm stand that people should be equal and not because the majority says, it is right. Another notable point is that utilitarianism is contradicting with justice because justice requires treating people fairly. If they think of only the majority, there will come a time that the majority s happiness will be the sorrow and pain of another and this is not fair. It contradicts with rights too because rights of people are different and somehow personal. Personal rights are not accepted in utilitarianism. Promises contradict utilitarianism too. This happens when the option not to fulfill that promise overweighs fulfilling it in the majority rule. This means that people may use the majority rule as an excuse not to do what is promised. He also mentioned a problem about hedonists that it gets happiness wrong. They say that we think of things as good when they make us happy but in reality, we are happy because that things is already good in our minds, even before we became happy about it. In response to Kathleen Tang Page 19

20 this, the defenders of utilitarianism said that hedonistic views were not a necessary part of their theory anyway. My stand on this is to firmly agree with Rachels. I don't think it is fair for the utilitarians to just go for the majority. Learning Insights: Hedonists are getting the notion of happiness wrong Smart s response to those against utilitarianism is to say So What? Rachels pointed out three ways to sum up utilitarianism Integrative Questions: 1. How does Utilitarianism contradict against religion? Give example. 2. How does Utilitarianism contradict against law? Give example. 3. How does Utilitarianism contradict against Promises? Give example. 4. Explain the first line of Defense. 5. Explain the second line of defense. Review Questions: 1. Rachels says that the classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? Rachels said that first, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences and nothing else matters. Second, he said that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness is caused. And third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else s. 2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? The problem with hedonism is that it gets happiness wrong. They say that we think of things as good when they make us happy but in reality, we are happy because that things is already good in our minds, even before we became happy about it. In response to this, the defenders of utilitarianism said that hedonistic views were not a necessary part of their theory anyway. 3. What are the objectives about justice, rights, and promises? Utilitarianism is contradicting with justice because justice requires treating people fairly. If they think of only the majority, there will come a time that the majority s happiness will be the sorrow and pain of another and this is not fair. It contradicts with rights too because rights of people are different and somehow personal. Personal rights are not accepted in utilitarianism. Kathleen Tang Page 20

21 Promises contradict utilitarianism too. This happens when the option not to fulfill that promise overweighs fulfilling it in the majority rule. This means that people may use the majority rule as an excuse not to do what is promised. 4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections? Act-utilitarianism is the original theory of the utilitarian doctrine and they say that each individual action is to be evaluated by reference to its own particular consequences. While the modern version of this doctrine, called rule-utilitarianism, defends that individual actions will no longer be judged by the Principle of Utility but instead, rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will be then judged right or wrong by reference to the rules. Discussion Questions: 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. This response is not acceptable to me because I just don t think you should simple shove off a moral value just because it doesn t go in line with utilitarianism. This is definitely against my beliefs. 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? Those concerned are those who have rational thinking, those who can represent themselves in full capacity. This means that nonhuman animals, children and natural resources are not involved. In short, only those who consider themselves to have morals. 3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree? Yes, I do agree. Everyone is individual and unique and they should be able to express themselves freely. Kathleen Tang Page 21

22 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES Immanuel Kant The Categorical Imperative Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn about the view of Immanuel Kant and why his Categorical Imperative is so different and popular in discussions about morality. POWER, WEALTH, HONOUR, EVEN HEALTH AND THAT COMPLETE WELL-BEING AND CONTENTMENT WITH ONE S STATE WHICH GOES BY THE NAME OF HAPPINESS, PRODUCE BOLDNESS, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OFTEN OVER-BOLDNESS AS WELL. Review: Immanuel Kant has some really strong arguments on imperative. He drew the line between the hypothetical and categorical imperative and advocates his work on the latter. He said that : When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain until its condition is given. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. There is therefore only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. These statements suggest that the hypothetical imperative states that you don t really know what will happen before you do an act. But the categorical imperative suggests that you must know what will happen therefore, everyone in that situation does it already. It should be applied as a universal law. His words are very strong and straightforward. He even gave examples on how categorical imperative may be applied in our lives. This view is also acceptable to me but it has to be taken in moderation. I don t think it will be necessary that all things you do or every decision you make must be possible to convert as a universal law. I think most of us already think that way. Most of sometimes think of what other people might do. Of course, there is no universal law on how to addres each and every problem but we can certainly give a thought on Kathleen Tang Page 22

23 how we should go about it. And during this thinking phase, we can cross the idea of what other people would do. What is the general rule? Learning Insights: The difference between hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative is whether you know or don t know the outcome of the action. The end defines the mean. Integrative Questions: 1. Why does Kant suggest believing in the categorical imperative more than the hypothetical? 2. What does the first formula of categorical imperative imply? 3. What does the second formula of categorical imperative imply? 4. Why does Kant say that the end defines the mean? 5. Why is it important that the end is objective and not subjective? Review Questions: 1. Explain Kant's account of good will. A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone that is, good in itself. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain until its condition is given. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. There is therefore only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. 3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative(using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This imperative is just like saying that it should be a universal law. This means that whenever you re going to do something or make a decision, you have to see to it that it can be a universal law because if otherwise then it is a hypothetical imperative rather than categorical. 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end), and explain it. The second version says: 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 Kathleen Tang Page 23

24 time as an end.... This simply means that the end is as important because it justifies the mean. Discussion Questions: 1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view. I think that they are two different rules. The first one states that you should be able to make a universal law out of your action and the second states that the end should be objective because it will justify the mean. 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. I think, it is okay if you can do it moderately. He has some points too. 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? I think that it is their right to say this. Sometimes, his views may be views Kathleen Tang Page 24

25 TITLE OF THE BOOK: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LIBRARY REFERENCE: N/A AMAZON LINK: CHAPTER 1: ETHICAL THEORIES Aristotle Happiness and virtue Learning Expectations: Quote: I expect to learn what a person belonging to the time before Christ thinks about happiness. I want to know how Aristotle says we can achieve happiness and why. FOR MEN ARE GOOD IN BUT ONE WAY, BUT BAD IN MANY. Review: In this review Aristotle related happiness with virtue and pleasure. But first we must define happiness. According to Aristotle, the definition of happiness is an activity of the soul in line with virtue. In simpler terms, happiness is a virtuous soul activity. Pleasure, honor, or wealth, according to him is not happiness. This is one of the things that many of us today have a misconception with. We constantly seek for happiness and almost everytime, in the most physical state, like money, power and pleasure. In Aristotle's words, it is not in these things that we see happiness. It is in the plainest act of a good deed where we have accomplished something better that we find happiness. This is the reason why he explained the relation of happiness with the virtuous soul activities. If we do something indeed good enough to pass off as virtuous, then we will be content and find our happy zone. Pleasure, on the other hand, is another thing that always mislead to finding our true happiness. Now we ask the question that most people in the society and even in different generations ask: Is happiness attainable? Yes, it is possible for everyone in our society to be happy. According to Aristotle, the life of a man who is active in accordance with viture will be truly happy. Now there is a point where man makes his own decisions and in whatever track he chooses, it is his own consequence. Now Aristotle says that anyone can be truly happy. Happiness only exists as far as contemplation does; therefore it is some form of contemplation. The gods are blessed for they can achieve this but the animals who are deprived of this activity will not achieve happiness. Kathleen Tang Page 25

26 Learning Insights: Happiness is attainable. Aristotle says that only philosophers can truly be happy. Happiness is not always derived from pleasure. Integrative Questions: 1. What is the relation of happiness with virtue? 2. How does pleasure stand on happiness? 3. What is happiness in Aristotle s view? 4. What are the means and the ends? 5. What is it that defines happiness? Review Questions: 1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? According to Aristotle, the definition of happiness is an activity of the soul in line with virtue. In simpler terms, happiness is a virtuous soul activity. Pleasure, honor, or wealth, according to him is not happiness. This is one of the things that many of us today have a misconception with. We constantly seek for happiness and almost everytime, in the most physical state, like money, power and pleasure. In Aristotle's words, it is not in these things that we see happiness. It is in the plainest act of a good deed where we have accomplished something better that we find happiness. This is the reason why he explained the relation of happiness with the virtuous soul activities. If we do something indeed good enough to pass off as virtuous, then we will be content and find our happy zone. Pleasure, on the other hand, is another thing that always mislead to finding our true happiness. 2. How does Aristorle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. Moral virtue is not something that is innate in human beings but rather it is achieved from training and habit. There is what he calls a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency which is generally a state of character. As an example, he mentioned about the virtue of courage which is a mean between extreme rashness and cowardice. Although this seems like an easy task, it is not what it seems. It's very hard to find the middle, just like the middle of a circle. It is easy to get angry, and easy to give or spend money but to do it to right person at the right time with the right amount is not an easy task. 3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? It is possible for everyone in our society to be happy. According to Aristotle, the life of a Kathleen Tang Page 26