View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Need for More Than Justice by Annette Baier
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Justice as Fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear that the contract idea can be extended to a choice of more or less an entire ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for all the virtues and not only for justice.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter, I am thinking if I will learn:
• What is Theory of Justice according to John Rawls
• His two principles of Justice and how the two differ from each other.

Review:
A distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such as Kant and Rawls and the care perspective Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development of women. Baier argues that the justice perspective by itself in inadequate as a moral theory. It overlooks inequalities between people, it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. The best moral theory, she claims, is one that harmonizes justice and care.

I do agree on what Baier said that the best moral theory is the harmonized justice and care because I also do think that they go hand in hand with each other. Justice will be at the corner if a person does have care for each other. With care, people will know that they already hurt other and will do something to compensate for what they have done wrong.

She also discusses the theory of moral development which she said has two dimensions; the first is to aim at achieving satisfying community with others, the other aiming at autonomy or equality of power. The relative predominance of one over the other development will depend both upon the relative salience of the two evils in early childhood, and on early and later reinforcement or discouragement in attempts made to guard against these two evils. Baier said that these provides the germs of a theory about why, given current customs of childrearing, it should be mainly woman who are not content with only the moral outlook that she calls the justice perspectives, necessary though that was and is seem by them so have been to their hard worn liberation from sexist oppression. They, like the blacks, used the language of rights and justice to change their own social position, but nevertheless see limitations in that language, according to Gilligan’s findings as a moral psychologist. She reports the “discontent: with the individualist more or less Kantian moral frame woks that dominates Western moral theory and which influenced moral psychologist such as Lawrence Kohlberg, to whose conception of moral maturity she seeks an alternatives. The target of Gilligan’s criticism is the dominant Kantian traditions.
What I have learned:

The main topic that I learned is the Justice and Care should be hand in hand. Justice will be at the corner if a person does have care for each other. With care, people will know that they already hurt other and will do something to compensate for what they have done wrong. There is no need for too much enforcement because people already know what the proper thing to do is.

Review Questions:

1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop?
2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this theory?
3. Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are these differences?
4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?

Answers:

1. She distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such as Kant and Rawls and the care perspective Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development of women. Baier argues that the justice perspective by itself in inadequate as a moral theory. It overlooks inequalities between people, it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. The best moral theory, she claims, is one that harmonizes justice and care.

2. The theory of moral development has two dimensions the first is to aim at achieving satisfying community with others, the other aiming at autonomy or equality of power. The relative predominance of one over the other development will depend both upon the relative salience of the two evils in early childhood, and on early and later reinforcement or discouragement in attempts made to guard against these two evils. Baier said that these provides the germs of a theory about why, given current customs of childrearing, it should be mainly woman who are not content with only the moral outlook that she calls the justice perspectives, necessary though that was and is seem by them so have been to their hard worn liberation from sexist oppression. They, like the blacks, used the language of rights and justice to change their own social position, but nevertheless see limitations in that language, according to Gilligan’s findings as a moral psychologist. She reports the “discontent: with the individualist more or less Kantian moral frame woks that dominates Western moral theory and which influenced moral psychologist such as Lawrence Kohlberg, to whose conception of moral maturity she seeks an alternatives. The target of Gilligan’s criticism is the dominant Kantian traditions.

3. The three important differences between Kantian liberals and critics Baier says are, first it was dubious record, second was its inattention to relations inequality or its pretence of equality. The third reason is its exaggeration of scoop of choice, or its inattention to unchosen relations.

4. Baier attacked the Kantians view because the Kantian picture of a controlling reason dictating to possibly unruly passions also tends to seem less useful when we are led to consider what sort of person we need to fill the role of parent, or indeed want in any close relationship. It might be important to fathers figure to have rational control over their violent urges to beat to death the children whose screams enrage them, but more than control of such nasty passions seems needed in the mother or primary parent, or parent-substitute by most psychological theories. They need to love their children’s not just to control their irritation so the emphasis in Kantian theories on rational control of emotions. Rather than on cultivating desirable forms of emotions, in challenged by Gilligan, along with the challenge to the assumption of the centrality of autonomy, or relations between equals, and of freely chosen relations.

Discussion Questions:

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 right?
2. What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?
3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?

Answers:

1. “ To transvalue the values of our patriarchal past “ this is what Baier speaks meaning to say that we have to continue the ancestral values that we carry out on everyday living for example the work of the wife are to do all the households choirs and have the obligation to take care of their children’s while the husband is the one who need to work to provide the needs of the family and now it doesn’t mean that the new values replace the old ones but the point is because of the poverty both of them are now working just to sustain their primary needs like foods, clothes, shelter and education.

2. The wrong about the Kantian view is that people will feel that they are obliged to do the things they want or not wanted to do. I think that since women and children has the equal rights to the adult, then their duty is the same as the adult which is unfair, they needed to be protected first.

I think Baier would say that those people shouldn’t feel any force obligation on their shoulder.

3. It is very important because we are here on this world by fate, but fate doesn’t give us everything we needed to be called as grown up man/woman. We have our own choices because by doing this we learned the things that school can teach us. In addition, we also learned about certain instances in life in where it can define who you really are.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and the sea, for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously.”

Learning Expectation: I am expecting to:
• Knows what is Happiness for Aristotle
• Learn on how we be happy
• Understand why virtue and pleasures go hand in hand with happiness

Review:
Happiness, this word is what I always heard from Utilitarianism, Debate over Utilitarianism and now on Aristotle Happiness and Virtue.

Like what Rachels asked, what is Happiness? For Aristotle happiness is a virtuously activity of the soul. It is something that you can gain through contemplating. Happiness is said to be related with virtue because according to Aristotle, virtue is a state of character that concerned with the intermediate, mean or what we commonly known as middle. We need to be on the mean because like what the old saying goes, having too much and too less is something that be consider as dreadful. To Aristotle, having something that is excessive and deficiency can destroy our own happiness.

Pleasure, this is something that always put hand in hand with happiness. For Aristotle, pleasure like what almost people said so is also happiness, but it can be considered as the lowest form because it will only give people temporary happiness. Unlike what Happiness on Aristotelian point of view, that it will give you something that even your soul can be fed up.

Aristotle also said that Moral virtue is what makes the mean. Moral virtue is something something that a product of training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. According to him, moral virtue wasn’t arises by nature because you can’t change natural things, like the way you can’t train the rain to pour from you feet upwards. He also said that moral virtue is like a good work of the art, excessiveness and deficiency on it can destroy its beauty but the mean can preserve it. In addition, moral virtue should be feeling on the right time, with the right objects towards the right people. Moral Virtue is the mean that makes things right.

What I have learned:

Aristotle Happiness and Virtue is my main favorite among the 12 chapters because it really gave me a hard time to understand what he is talking about.

I really learned that Happiness is easy to have, as long as the person knows how to contemplate and think of the things that “really” makes him happy. Things that he knows he will regret if ever he didn’t do it, something that can last for maybe a lifetime.

I also learned that we are the one who create our own happiness. Happiness is very subjective that you alone can tell whether you are happy or not. You alone can also dictates on when or how can you be happy.

Review Questions:

1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How it is related to virtue? How is it related to
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtues? Give some examples.
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?

Answers:
1. Happiness according to Aristotle is a virtuously activity of the soul. Virtue is the state of character that concerned on the intermediate, or the mean, because excessiveness and deficiency destroy something. Virtue is related to happiness because it is the one who find the mean or the best thing inside of us that we doesn’t see because we are blinded by the excessiveness and deficiency of the our wants. Pleasure is related to happiness because most men and those who are a vulgar type define happiness as life enjoyment, and great example of it is what we called Pleasures.
2. Aristotle explain the moral virtue as something that a product of training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. According to him, moral virtue wasn’t arises by nature because you can’t change natural things, like the way you can’t train the rain to pour from you feet upwards. He also said that moral virtue is like a good work of the art, excessiveness and deficiency on it can destroy its beauty but the mean can preserve it. In addition, moral virtue should be feeling on the right time, with the right objects towards the right people. Moral Virtue is the mean that makes things right.
3. On what I read, I can say that everyone has the possibility to be happy because all you need is to have a moral virtue that we said is a product of a habit or training. And this can be achieved by the means of contemplating, like what stated on the chapter, “Happiness therefore must be some form of contemplation”. In addition, I really like what this sentence is implying “we can do noble acts without ruling the earth and the sea, for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously”, this quotation is a proof that it is easy to be happy, as long as you know how to be morally virtuous.
Discussion Question:
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasures as suitable for beast. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasures?
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else, why is this? Do you agree or not?
Answers:
1. I think it is because Life pleasures are all temporary and just can satisfy your physical self. We know that we also have moral and spiritual self unlike the beast who is here just to live, nothing more, so they all need to find food and mates. Human isn’t like that, we also seek for something beyond physical things, and pleasure is something that just can satisfy you for a year or so, but it can never bring you absolute happiness.
2. He said that the philosopher will be happier that anyone else because even by himself he can contemplate, and contemplation is some form of happiness. I do agree on him because people aren’t used to contemplate, instead of doing contemplation, you most probably see him enjoying life pleasures that we are all know as temporary. In addition, I personally think that philosopher see life in a much sensible perspective due to their willingness and habit to contemplate. Contemplation really defines happiness because this is the way you can know your self more and realize the actions you need to do in order to experience self-fulfillment. In addition, have you realize that every time a hardship or feeling of lacking comes to a person’s way, he tend to contemplate because that is the only way to find the best solution that will lead to their own happiness.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and the sea, for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously.”

Learning Expectation: I am expecting to:
• Knows what is Happiness for Aristotle
• Learn on how we be happy
• Understand why virtue and pleasures go hand in hand with happiness

Review:
Happiness, this word is what I always heard from Utilitarianism, Debate over Utilitarianism and now on Aristotle Happiness and Virtue.

Like what Rachels asked, what is Happiness? For Aristotle happiness is a virtuously activity of the soul. It is something that you can gain through contemplating. Happiness is said to be related with virtue because according to Aristotle, virtue is a state of character that concerned with the intermediate, mean or what we commonly known as middle. We need to be on the mean because like what the old saying goes, having too much and too less is something that be consider as dreadful. To Aristotle, having something that is excessive and deficiency can destroy our own happiness.

Pleasure, this is something that always put hand in hand with happiness. For Aristotle, pleasure like what almost people said so is also happiness, but it can be considered as the lowest form because it will only give people temporary happiness. Unlike what Happiness on Aristotelian point of view, that it will give you something that even your soul can be fed up.

Aristotle also said that Moral virtue is what makes the mean. Moral virtue is something something that a product of training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. According to him, moral virtue wasn’t arises by nature because you can’t change natural things, like the way you can’t train the rain to pour from you feet upwards. He also said that moral virtue is like a good work of the art, excessiveness and deficiency on it can destroy its beauty but the mean can preserve it. In addition, moral virtue should be feeling on the right time, with the right objects towards the right people. Moral Virtue is the mean that makes things right.

What I have learned:

Aristotle Happiness and Virtue is my main favorite among the 12 chapters because it really gave me a hard time to understand what he is talking about.

I really learned that Happiness is easy to have, as long as the person knows how to contemplate and think of the things that “really” makes him happy. Things that he knows he will regret if ever he didn’t do it, something that can last for maybe a lifetime.

I also learned that we are the one who create our own happiness. Happiness is very subjective that you alone can tell whether you are happy or not. You alone can also dictates on when or how can you be happy.

Review Questions:

1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How it is related to virtue? How is it related to
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtues? Give some examples.
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?

Answers:
1. Happiness according to Aristotle is a virtuously activity of the soul. Virtue is the state of character that concerned on the intermediate, or the mean, because excessiveness and deficiency destroy something. Virtue is related to happiness because it is the one who find the mean or the best thing inside of us that we doesn’t see because we are blinded by the excessiveness and deficiency of the our wants. Pleasure is related to happiness because most men and those who are a vulgar type define happiness as life enjoyment, and great example of it is what we called Pleasures.
2. Aristotle explain the moral virtue as something that a product of training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. According to him, moral virtue wasn’t arises by nature because you can’t change natural things, like the way you can’t train the rain to pour from you feet upwards. He also said that moral virtue is like a good work of the art, excessiveness and deficiency on it can destroy its beauty but the mean can preserve it. In addition, moral virtue should be feeling on the right time, with the right objects towards the right people. Moral Virtue is the mean that makes things right.
3. On what I read, I can say that everyone has the possibility to be happy because all you need is to have a moral virtue that we said is a product of a habit or training. And this can be achieved by the means of contemplating, like what stated on the chapter, “Happiness therefore must be some form of contemplation”. In addition, I really like what this sentence is implying “we can do noble acts without ruling the earth and the sea, for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously”, this quotation is a proof that it is easy to be happy, as long as you know how to be morally virtuous.
Discussion Question:
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasures as suitable for beast. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasures?
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else, why is this? Do you agree or not?
Answers:
1. I think it is because Life pleasures are all temporary and just can satisfy your physical self. We know that we also have moral and spiritual self unlike the beast who is here just to live, nothing more, so they all need to find food and mates. Human isn’t like that, we also seek for something beyond physical things, and pleasure is something that just can satisfy you for a year or so, but it can never bring you absolute happiness.
2. He said that the philosopher will be happier that anyone else because even by himself he can contemplate, and contemplation is some form of happiness. I do agree on him because people aren’t used to contemplate, instead of doing contemplation, you most probably see him enjoying life pleasures that we are all know as temporary. In addition, I personally think that philosopher see life in a much sensible perspective due to their willingness and habit to contemplate. Contemplation really defines happiness because this is the way you can know your self more and realize the actions you need to do in order to experience self-fulfillment. In addition, have you realize that every time a hardship or feeling of lacking comes to a person’s way, he tend to contemplate because that is the only way to find the best solution that will lead to their own happiness.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Justice as Fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear that the contract idea can be extended to a choice of more or less an entire ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for all the virtues and not only for justice.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter, I am thinking if I will learn:
• What is Theory of Justice according to John Rawls
• His two principles of Justice and how the two differ from each other.

Review:
Rawls’s theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

It wasn’t easy to understand what Rawls is saying. Though if you will think about what he said, we can say that Justice has major two components, the basic notion of equality which the court protects and the second is about the external factors such as environment, and society.

The first principle states that equal basic liberties are involves meaning to say that justice should regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions then having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact law, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon.

The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities meaning to say that our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. It will then be true that whenever social constitutions satisfy theses principle those engaged in them can say that they are cooperating on terms which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principle hence this principle cannot be sacrifice no society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects
What I have learned:

I learned that Justice has two principles; the first principle is applied to the basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economical advantages. This principle is about protecting us against factors that can harm us or can take advantage on us.

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.
2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?

Answers:

1. Rawls’s theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

2. The first principle states that equal basic liberties are involves meaning to say that justice should regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions then having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact law, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon.

3. The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities meaning to say that our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. It will then be true that whenever social constitutions satisfy theses principle those engaged in them can say that they are cooperating on terms which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principle hence this principle cannot be sacrifice no society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects.

Discussion Question:

1. On the first principle, each person ahs an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have 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?

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than give 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?

Answers:

1. The first principle is applied to the basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economical advantages. The aspect of the social system that defines and secures the equal liberties of the citizenship and those specify and establish social and economic equalities. The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to hold personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of the law. These liberties are all required to be equal by the first principle and not those people engage in homosexual because as we all know God create man and woman not the other way around. So if you violate the rule of the law there is some punishment equivalent to your wrong doing.

2. I do think yes, because even like what they say that people are selfish in nature, we are also taught to live for other people. And those values are the reasons why we can agree on different principles that we know as right.

As for the example, I do think that people will still choose socialism because they knew that what they do are the right things. In addition, people also knew that in capitalism, only few people will be benefited and this will be against what the moral values that they knew.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronal Dworkin
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “The institution of Rights is therefore crucial, because it represents the majority’s promise to the minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter, I am thinking if I will learn:
• Why it is entitle taking Rights Seriously
• How it is connected with Law, Government and individual Rights

Review:
I do agree on what Dworkin says that the government should dispense with the claim that citizen never has the rights to break the law and it must not define citizen right that these are cut-off for supposed reason of general good.

I agree to this because there are certain instances that government should tolerate law-breaking in some cases, namely, when laws conflict with rights. On Dworking example, if our army capture an enemy soldier, the right thing to do for the enemy soldier is to escape, because he will be punished on the context that he only do his duty as a citizen of his country. I didn’t not say that we should let him escape, what I am pointing is that we think that if we look on other perspective, the law can tolerate this because he will die if ever he doesn’t do this actions.

Another example that I can think of if the employee doesn’t show in her work and doesn’t have any resignation letter. The employee can be sued in terms of unprofessionalism but it can be tolerated by the law if the reason why she did that was because her boss was harassing her.

Another point that I also agree on is what Dworkin says that any Government harsh treatment of civil disobedience or campaign against vocal protest may therefore be thought against its sincerity. Government and laws do subsist because it protects its citizen’s right. It helps its citizen to be protected against circumstances that can harm her. And if the government does such thing, we can really conclude that they don’t have full sincerity on their duty to their inhabitant.

I also agree that the government view is necessarily the correct views; anyone who thinks it does must believe that men and women have only such moral rights as government chooses to grant which means that they have no moral rights at all. Like what I said earlier, government are there because it protect us, but it doesn’t mean that it cover everything. We have rights that can’t be cover by what Government laws states, these rights are our edge on our Government.

What I have learned:

I learned on this chapter that sometimes you need to break what everyone think as right in order to make them realized that there is a better right. Sometimes, the time changes what we think right and turned them into hidden wrong. This instances need to be corrected in order to make this assumptions right in all manners possible.

I also learned that Government should allow law breaking provided that you don’t harm other people and it is really necessary. Breaking the law in this manner will also have consequences but it will never as heavy as it main prestation says.

Review Questions:

1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the U.S. Constitution?
2. Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are not moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

Answers:

1. On Dworkin’s view about the rights he said that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. For example, if citizen have a right to free speech, then it is wrong for the government to interfere with the exercise of this right (unless this is necessary to protect other right). And there are two rights that have been protected by the U.S Constitution, the legal and moral rights.

2. Moral Rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity in contrast Legal rights are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

3. The first model recommends striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of the society and was described in this way, has great plausibility, and most laymen and lawyers he think would respond to it warmly, while the second model is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of a political community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the most powerful members have secured for themselves, so that if some men have general good, then all men have the same freedom. Dworkin find more attractive on the second model.

4. According to Dworkin the institution of right must require an act of faith on the part of the minorities and the second was the Government will not reestablished respect of law without giving the law some claim to respect.

Discussion Question:

1. Does a person have aright to break the law? Why or why not?
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
3. Do you think that Kant would accept right in the strong sense or not?

Answers:

1. Yes they have a rights to do that as long as they are not doing wrong and it can be applied the concept of Dwokin that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them meaning to say that if the people didn’t agree on what is stated on the constitution they have a power to break it as long as they have a well acceptable reason to proved their complains.

2. Yes it is compatible because Mill’s utilitarianism state that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of Happiness meaning to say rights are promoted just for us to attain freedom, and if there is freedom of course there will be peace and happiness.

3. Yes he will accept it because rights are the only things that can gave every individual a freedom for them to choose what they want and what is the best for them as long as they will be happy and also as long as their decisions doesn’t break the law.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote:“Even if there are conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights diffidently, there is no doubt that their characteristic use and that for which they are distinctively well suited, is to be claimed, demanded, affirmed, and insisted upon…Having rights, of course, makes claiming possible; but it is claiming that gives rights their special moral significance.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter on Contemporary Moral Problem, I am expecting to:
• Further understand the Nowheresville.
• Acquire the importance of having rights like what Feinberg keep on emphasizing.

Review:
Feinberg start his Nature and Value of Rights asking everyone to imagine Nowheresville, a world like our own except people living here doesn’t have any rights. We are asked, as his reader to imagine that this place is does have abundant generosity and a person gives empathy very easily. They also have a high level of expressiveness, courtesy and politeness both in public and private discourse. But, like what I said on the first sentence they don’t have any rights.

Then Feinberg takes us on a journey in examining the consequences, if there will slight changes were made to the Nature of Nowheresville. He introduces duty, but it was not the action that is due others and can be claimed through rights. They now have the duties required by the law and under pain of penalty, but they don’t have duties to others and entail their rights. Duties here are meant the idea of something due to someone, and thus paying our dues becomes paying that which we owe others and they can make a claim to. Keep in mind that this does not have to be any kind of monetary debt, but something that naturally arises either from (a) the inherent worth of an individual such that the realization of his needs are someone’s debt, or (b) the establishing of a contract which binds two or more people together as to what each owes the other, given the obtaining of certain circumstances.

Because Nowheresville lack of duties, if some is at fault for hurting us, example someone break your car window because they are playing baseball near on your parking area. We can complain that they were wrong but because they have no right and duty, we have no moral justifications for making any claim that they have a duty on fixing what they have broke. Feinberg said that those thing, when we are a Nowherevillians doesn’t cross our mind because the person has no moral duty to us, therefore they have no responsibility on what they did. We can make a complaint, but not regarding to moral duties.

The important conclusion yielded from his thought experiment – or what he is claiming as important – is that no matter what else Nowheresville has, if it does not have the idea of rights then something “morally important” is missing

What I have learned:

On this sub-chapter, I learned that no matter what kind of good traits you have, if you don’t have any duty to others, you will just think that what you do is always right. You, as a person will not do something to payback what you have done, because like what the Nowherevillians, you don’t have any rights and any duties towards others.

The duties that we know is something that give us moral values because we think that we need to do something in order to pay the damages that we cause to other people. Rights are also something that makes us claim what other people done to us. This is what entitles us, and other people as well to be fair.

Review Questions:

1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?
2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?
3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville?
4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg?
5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

Answers:

1. Nowheresville, a world like our own except that people do not have rights. As a result, people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly. They cannot demand or claim just treatment, and so they are deprived of self-respect and human dignity.

2. The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties is the doctrine that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entails other people’s duties. John Feinberg says that his answers are a sense of yes and no. He said, etymologically, the word duty is associated with actions that are due someone else, the payments of the debts to creditors, the keeping of agreements with promises, the payment of club dues, or legal fees, or tariffs levies to appropriate authorities of their respective.

3. Personal desert is when a person is said to deserve something good from us what is meant in parts is that there would be certain proprietary in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of kind of person he is, perhaps, or more likely, in virtue of some specific thing he has done.

4. Sovereign monopoly is about the latter case that he could be said not merely to deserve the good thing but also have a right to it as his due; and of course we will not have that sort of things in Nowheresville. That weaker kind of proprietary which is mere dessert is simply kind of fittingness between ones party’s character or action and another party’s favorable response, much like that between humors, laughter, or good performance applause.

5. The conceptual linkage between personal rights and claiming has long been noticed by legal writers and is reflected in the standard usage in which “claim rights” are distinguished from other liberties, immunities, and powers, also sometimes called “rights”, with which they are easily confused.

Discussions Questions:

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim of right?

Answers:

1. I do think that Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights because in the Nowheresville, people doesn’t believe in rights.

2. Claim right is to have a right is to have a claim against someone whose recognition as valid is called for by some set of governing rules or moral principles.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Learning Expectation: I am expecting to:
• Learn what is Categorical Imperative is
• Know Kant standpoint
• Understand Kant’s good will

Review:
Personally, I love Kant’s Good Will because I do think that what he said about it was true. Good will is something that you can have even you can’t get everything that you want from this freaking amazing earth.

Like what Kant said, the Good will define the term character. As like Kant says that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out of it except of the Good Will. Good will is something that makes intelligence, wit, judgment, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose as qualities of temperament as good character. Good will is good in itself.

Good will make what we know as character good, because without the power of self giving, any attitude can be tag as bad. I remember my moral class on high school; my teacher say will is the person voluntary act to do something without anyone asking him or her to do so. So in other words, the good will can show the world that we are person that wasn’t really bad because we have this voluntary nature to do what we think is good.

In addition I think what Kant means on his first imperative that there is only one thing that can be said universal to everything that you will do. It is something that you can say as your principle regarding the things that you are living with. One sayings fit-all in other terms of word.

On the other hand, I think Kant’s meaning on his second imperative says is that you should be the judge on your own life. Having an ends can means that what you are doing isn’t a subject on any external critiques because it already reach it end, it already reach its limit.

What I have learned:

I learned things about the good will and how it can make our actions and good. In addition, I also learned that there are certain things that I can say bad but because there is a good will they become good.

I also learned that there are times that we should have our own universal law. But like what I said on the review, there are times that this universal law can’t fit on our life because it do have too many perspective.

Review Questions:

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.
2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universe law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and ends). And explain it.

Answers:

1. Kant says that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out of it except of the Good Will. Good will is something that makes intelligence, wit, judgment, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose as qualities of temperament as good character. Good will is good in itself.

2. Hypothetical imperatives in general say that you don’t know beforehand the content until the condition is given, while on categorical imperative, you already know the content or what it contains.

3. The first formulation of the categorical imperative says “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Kant says that if all imperative of duty can be derived from this one imperative as their principle, then even although we leave it unsettled whenever what we call duty may not be an empty concept, we shall still be able to show at least we understand what the concept means.

I think what Kant means is that there is only one thing that can be said universal to everything that you will do. It is something that you can say as your principle regarding the things that you are living with.

4. Kant’s second imperative says “Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means but always as the same time as an ends.”

I think Kant is saying that you should be the judge on your own life. Having an ends can means that what you are doing isn’t a subject on any external critiques because it already reach it end, it already reach its limit.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they tow different rules? Defend your view.
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.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

Answers:

1. I do thing that the two imperatives are similar because when you carefully look at it, you will realized that both imperatives says that you should be the ruler of your life. The first says that you should have one universal law which linked you to the second imperative that says you should be on the end or be definite.

2. I don’t agree with him, because for me there are things or actions that you do beyond the motive of duty. There are instances that you do something without any feeling to do so because of the simple reason that you just wanted to do.

Ex. Liza goes to her enemy’s house just because she just wanted to do so and also want to have reconciliation. It wasn’t her duty to do so, but because she wanted to, she do what she wants, and I can say that it have its own worth.

3. Actually I don’t know because personally, I cant really decipher the real meaning of the first imperative because I think that there is really no universal law because life does have different perspective in which you can never have one saying fits all thing.