Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice
Book Review Sub- Chapter 12 Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory”
We all know that each and every individual should experience justice since it is the right that is innate to us individuals. Justice should be rewarded properly and fairly. On the other hand, Annette Baier states that not only justice should be considered but also inequalities of people should be taken into account.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the twelfth and last sub-chapter of the book is about Annette Baier’s The Need for More Than Justice I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This is the last sub-chapter of the first chapter of the book. It is evident that the past few sub chapters talks about justice. Now according to Annette Baier it is not only justice that has to be considered. Inequalities of people should also be considered.
What do you mean by the inequalities of people? The meaning of this is that people think and act distinctively. Individuals have their own weaknesses and strengths. This sub chapter says that it is not only justice to each and every person should be considered but also the inequalities they have. What is the connection of the inequalities towards justice? Giving justice to individuals should be different it should be based on their condition and their capacity.
What I have learned:
I have learned the point of Annette Baier The Need for More Than Justice. People should not only consider justice since it lacks. Individuals inequality and differences should also be considered when justice is being rendered.
5 Questions
1. Who is Anette Baier?
2. What is the meaning of justice as for Anette Baier?
3. Should justice be fairly given to individuals?
4. Do justice differ based on an individual;s capacity?
5. Do you think people in the Philippines experience justice?
Review Questions:
1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspective. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop?
The justice perspective means that justice should be given while on the other hand care should be given. These perspectives develop when we tend to care for others,thus we learn to give proper justice and care.
2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this theory?
The three theories of moral development are the following. Pre-conventional level, Conventional, and Post-conventional.Both Giligan and Baier have contrasting ideas on both of their theories.
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?
Since it is viewed by Baier that “history speaks by itself”
Discussion Questions:
1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvaluing the values of our patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, do we abandon justice, freedom, and rights?
Values before are being replaced by values for the new generation. Yet Justice, Freedom and rights will prolong forever.
2. What is wrong with Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?
For me, it is ok. Baier do not agree because she views that people should be treated differently.
3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our parents, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?
Yes, it is important, yet we should practice this freedom properly
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Book Review Sub- Chapter 11 of Chapter 1 John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “It is sought to give justice should to each individual”
Each and every individual should be given fair justice. No matter where you came from, no matter who you are and no matter what you ought to be. We should be fair to everyone and treat each of them properly and give due justice.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the eleventh sub-chapter of the book is about John Rawls: A Theory of Justice I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
Rawls theory states that there are two principles of justice, which is involving equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The other principle is the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls, 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.
What I have learned:
I have learned the point of John Rawls on the theory of Justice Taking. People should be given fair justice and respect. I also learned the two principles of justice John Rawls had pointed out.
5 Questions
1. Who is John Rawls?
2. Explain the two principles of justice according to John Rawls
3. What is justice according to John Rawls?
4. Why do you think people should experience justice?
5. Do people take into considerations the principles given by John Rawls?
Review Questions:
1. Carefully explain Rawl’s conception of the original position.
Rawls explains the principles of justice. He explains the values of justice and the exceptions that has to be considered.
2. State and Explain Rawl’s first principle of Justice.
The first principle that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
3. State and Explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. The two principles should be prioritized since they are both important.
Discussion Questions:
1. On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with similar liberty for others. What does this allow to do?
It gives freedom and justice to people as long things do not yield to damages to others.
2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than those given by Rawls?
Yes it is.
Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Book Review Sub- Chapter 10 of Chapter 1: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “that individuals have legal rights beyond those explicitly laid down and that they have political and moral rights against the state that are prior to the welfare of the majority.”
Each of us has rights stipulated in codes of our law. But it doesn’t mean that all the rights of he people are those stipulated there. There are also rights of individuals that are not written yet each of us know that an individual is capable of doing and have the right to perform such duties with freedom and respect.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the tenth sub-chapter of the book is about Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
Let us first know about Joel Feinberg. Based on my research on Wikipedia, Joel Feinberg is “Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 – March 29, 2004) was an American political and social philosopher. He is known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state.[1] Feinberg helped in shaping the American legal landscape. [2] Feinberg studied at the University of Michigan, writing his dissertation on the philosophy of the Harvard professor Ralph Barton Perry under the supervision of Charles Stevenson. He taught at Brown University, Princeton University, UCLA and Rockefeller University, and at the University of Arizona, where he retired in 1994 as Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law.
The main idea of Joel Feinberg’s explanation and stand regarding Taking Rights Seriously is that each individuals have the right to do something, therefore we have no right to interfere to them. I believe in this line which Feinberg discussed. Individuals have the right to act and do things that he think would benefit him or others as well while respective what other thinks and not interfering to their actions and decisions.
What I have learned:
I have learned the point of Ronald Dworkin on Taking Rights Seriously. I believe in the quotation he have given out that if a person has the right to do something, then we should not interfere to them.
5 Questions
1. Who is Ronald Dworkin?
2. What is a utilitarian?
3. What is a his belief regarding rights as stipulated above.
4. Do you agree?
5. Is Dworkin’s point a common belief that everyone should not interfere to the rights of others?
1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the USA Constitution
Dworkin means that no one should interfere to the rights of others.
2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.
Legal Rights are the rights that we can perform towards our country. White the Moral Rights are the rights we perform each and every day of our lives. Rights that are more personal. Legal Rights, right to vote. Moral Rights, freedom.
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?
The first model says the striking balance between rights of the individual and the demands of society. On the other hand, the second model says that the government inflates a right. Dwokin agrees to the second model.
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
The Act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities
Discussion Questions:
1. Does a person have the right to break the law?
Yes they do have the right yet there are consequences that will be given.
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
No.
3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense?
No!
Aristotle Happiness and Virtue
Book Review Sub-Chapter 8 of Chapter 1: Aristotle Happiness and Virtue
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “knowledge would automatically lead to the right action.”
Do you agree on this statement? Me, No! Definitely I do not agree. Even if there are people that are very intelligent and knowledgeable of things, sometimes they use their cleverness and intelligence to wrongful actions. It doesn’t mean that if you are intelligent then you already do right things. What matters is that, doing things corresponds to morality, so as if things you do are moral then it is correct, no matter if you are intelligent or not.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the eighth sub-chapter of the book is about Aristotle’s Happiness and Virtue I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This chapter talks about Aristotle’s View regarding Happiness and Virtue. First of all, let us have some information regarding Aristotle. Based on my research I have captured these information from Wikipedia. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.
Now we know who the writer is, now let us discuess his meaning of virtue and happiness. Aristotle claims that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation. People that do actions can only be considered proper if it is in line with moral virtues.
What I have learned:
I have learned the point of Aristotle’s Happiness and Virtue.
5 Questions
1. Who is Aristotle?
2. What is Virtue?
3. What is Happiness?
4. Do you think that Aristotle’s claim is correct?
5. Do you practice Aristotle’s thinking regarding happiness and virtue?
Review Questions
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
Happiness according to Aristotle is the “activity of the soul in accordance to vrtue”. How is it related to virtue? First of all, what is a virtue? A virtue is simply a disposition to behave in a right manner/ doing right things as to people. Happiness is related to virtue because as stated by Aristotle, being happy has to be inline of being virtuous. People may only experience true happiness if they do things right. Happiness is also related to pleasure because people only sees happiness to pleasure, but for Aristotle happiness is do not come with pleasure.
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples
As stated by Aristotle, moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. This means that moral virtue is inherited when people is the process of growing fully, moral virtues for example is taught by teachers while people are studying. Moral virtues maybe inherited from friends and vices.
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?
Yes it is possible for everyone to be happy provided that they are doing things right. People have to be virtuous of what they are doing. If they are virtuous, then they will experience happiness. As for Aristotle, people that cannot be happy are those people who tend to feel happiness for their pleasure only.
Discussion Questions
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beast. But what, if anything is wrong with a life of pleasure?
As for Aristotle, happiness is experienced when people do right things, virtuous things. Aristotle stated that people become happy because of their pleasures which sometimes are vices. Theses vices aren’t virtuous yet people experience happiness from it. What is wrong with the life of pleasure? The wrong thing for the life of pleasure is that people are not immersed to real things in life that has to be done with virtue, with that they will feel happiness.
2. Aristotle claims that philosophers will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree of not?
Philosophers have their own studies and justifications for true happiness. I do not agree on this because happiness is a self-centric belief. Each distinct individuals have distinct beliefs on how to make their own selves happy. Just like those philosophers each individual has their own philosophy.
mmanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Book Review Sub- Chapter 7 of Chapter 1: Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “we all experience an innate moral duty”
What are morals by the way? Morals are to act properly. Act based on the standards of morality. Each and every individual was born to have a moral duty. What is that moral duty? To act, think, decide and treat other people in a righteous manner.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the seventh sub-chapter of the book is about Immanuel Kant and T the Categorical Imperative I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This chapter talks about the categorical imperative that is imposed by Immanuel Kant. First of all who is Immanuel Kant? Based on my research on Wikipedia, was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant’s own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
Immanuel Kant’s statement with regards to the categorical imperative is that, a moral act that would be right for any person in similar circumstances to those in which the agent finds himself when he executes it. Any person, doing somethings will only be declared his actions as right and proper if the majority of people will do the same things/decisions/actions when a certain person is in the same situation.
What I have learned:
I have learned who is Immanuel Kant and his statements regarding the Categorical Imperative.
5 Questions
1. Who is Immanuel Kant?
2. What is Categorical Imperative?
3. Do you agree in the Categorical Imperative?
4. Do you think the Categorical Imperative is being applied in the Philippines?
5. Is Categorical Imperative better than Utilitarianism?
Review Questions:
1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.
The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the good will, expressed in recognition of moral duty.
2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
In Hypothetical, it is needed to give a required action to an instance for something in the end to happen. While for categorical imperatives, it is only based on the rightness of an act.
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 according to that maxim whereby you can at the same become a universal law.”
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it.
Whatever you do, it will always be the reason for your outcome. The end will justify 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.
Entirely Different. Both opposes the other
2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral truth. Do you agree or not?
No I do not agree. All actions even not for a duty or a cause may be a moral truth.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative can be used to justify non moral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?
For me, I think that it is a good criticism since with the categorical imperative, you can quickly determine the morals of each actions an individual performs.
James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Book Review Sub-Chapter 6 of Chapter 1: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “Each person’s welfare is equally important”
Why do people work? Why do people spend time on things that they think will benefit them? These are only sample questions that would suffice the quotation I have chosen. Each person act for their welfare. They become hard working because they want to benefit their selves. Each persons welfare is important since because of the welfare, it will make you successful.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the sixth sub-chapter of the book is about James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This chapter talks about the debate of James Rachel over Utilitarianism. He has certain points he considers that john Stuart Mill have proposed yet other ideas was not passed by James Rachel.
James Rachel believes that happiness is not only the thing that always has to be considered since it says in the utilitarian aspect that we can only say things are right if it will give us happiness and make us feel the ultimate feeling. Rachel argues that it is not only happiness to ourselves that has to be considered regarding on our actions. If it do so, we will only think of ourselves when doing things.
What I have learned:
I have learned what is hedonism. Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is of ultimate importance, the most important pursuit. Also, I have concluded that hedonism is partly incorrect since people will just think of their selves when doing things that would correspond t the correctness of their actions.
5 Questions
1. Who is James Rachel?
2. What is Hedonism?
3. Do you believe in Hedonism?
4. What is Rachel’s view against Utilitarianism?
5. D you agree?
Review Questions:
1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?
First, actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Second, In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that caused. And Third, In calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused , no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else.
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?
Hedonism is a belief of moral happiness. Only pleasure can make us happy and pain to make us unhappy. To defend utilitarianism, they should change their view of pleasure and happiness.
3. What are the objections about justice, rights and promises?
For justice, people is not given fair justice. For rights, people aren’t practicing their rights. For promises, they are made to be broken.
4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule- utilitarianism reply to the objections?
The revised version of utilitarianism is better. It not all about happiness and actions but protocols will be established. If these rules are perfected then they are in the greater good. Act utilitarianism a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the right action is the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of beings.
5. What is the third line of defense?
Act Utilitarianism
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.
No, each and every individuals has their own perceptions and beliefs which is distinct to others.
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?
Yes, everyone and everything should be considered.
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?
Yes
John Stuart Mill: Utilitrianism
Book Review Sub-Chapter 5 of Chapter 1:
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
I adhere to this saying. I believe that whenever each person does things or performs things even though it will not give pleasure to him or her, it would still benefit happiness to others. It says here that whenever you make actions if it promotes happiness then it s considered right.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the fifth sub-chapter of the book is about John Stuart Mill’s, utilitarianism I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This chapter is about the belief of John Stuart Mill regarding utilitarianism. It states that ““ actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”
John Stuart Mill believes that people when doing things would only be considered proper and correct if it would promote happiness. If it will not promote happiness then it is not considered proper.
What I have learned:
I have learned that whenever people does actions that are good and correct, it will always be happiness in return. Not directly to the person who did the action but to the person that person did the action.
5 Questions
1. Who is John Stuart Mill?
2. What is Utilitarianism?
3. Do you believe in Utilitarianism?
4. Are all actions correct if it gives happiness?
5. What is utility?
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.
Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Stealing and lying will not promote happiness to both the thief and the victim, thus it is not proper.
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of a swine?
Whatever one party feels something is good for him, then the other party will feel the same.
3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
Higher pleasures will give more benefit to a person but higher consequences maybe experienced. On the other hand, if lower pleasures is wanted lower consequences may be taken into account.
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
The greatest happiness is the Utilitarian Principle.
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.
Things done by people will only be right if it will promote happiness.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and absence of pain?
Yes.
2. Does Mill convince you that the higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower?
Yes, I do agree I am convinced. The person who experience lower pleasure will experience lower consequences.
3. Mill says “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of ethics of utility.” True or not?
False.
4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the principle of utility is defective. Agree?
Yes I do agree.
Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
Book Review Sub- Chapter 4 of Chapter 1: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “The world is sharply divided into separate societies, scaled units, each with its own system of thoughts”
The world is a huge place wherein composes everything. It cannot be generalized as one family nor as one system all together. The world is composed of different people. Different people having different beliefs and different people living with different people. Why? People have different views on what to believe on. Each group/ community has different systems of thoughts wherein they unite.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the fourth sub-chapter of the book is about Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword. I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
This chapter talks about Mary Midgley defend on Moral Isolationism first of all, what is this term? Based on the book, “moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we can never criticize cultures that we don’t understand”.
Yet, Mary Midgley do not adhere to this. Midgley also explains that the people who take up this idea of moral isolationism think that it is being respectful to other cultures and societies. Midgey does not agree with this idea. “Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. To respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make a favorable judgement, however general and uncertain. And we do not understand people in other cultures to this extent. Based on her “Otherwise a great mass of our most valuable thinking would be paralyzed”
What I have learned:
I have learned that it is not important to judge others cultures because when judging these cultures it will help us to know them better and understand their beliefs and relate it to ours.
5 Questions
1. Who is Marie Midgley?
2. What is Moral Isolationism?
3. Do you believe in Moral Isolationism?
4. Is it ethical to judge others?
5. What is moral judgement?
Review Questions:
1. What is Moral Isolationism?
Moral Isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we can never criticize cultures that we don’t understand
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
The tsujigiri is a test done by samurais to test them if it passes their standard. Midgley asks if others questions tsujigiri.
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
People will also be alien and foreign to others if they don’t judge or tempt to learn others.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
The basis is if you don’t know those cultures.
Discussion Questions:
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?
No, they both have different views.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer
Yes. Everyone of us is drawn from one experience and belief since we came from one real GOD.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality
Book Review Sub- Chapter 3 of Chapter 1: Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “Healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power”
I disagree to this statement. First of all, I believe that everyone should have the right to lead. Every one of us is created from the image and likeness of God. We are all created equally and give fair rights. I do not believe that a healthy society should be lead by a superior individual. Everyone should be freely given the chance to express their ideas, express their knowledge especially when they think they can greatly affect something or someone. A society can be healthy as long as the one leading do not practice superiority.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the second sub-chapter of the book is about Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slave Morality. I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
Friedrich Nietzsche believes in two moralities. Master and Slave morality. What is master morality? Based on my research on answers.com Master Morality is the morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. Morality as such is sentiment. In the prehistoric state, “the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences but ultimately, “There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena. For these strong-willed men, the ‘good’ is the noble, strong and powerful, while the ‘bad’ is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Morality is designed to protect that which the strong-willed man values, and for slave and master, “Fear is the mother of morality. Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the ‘noble man’ with a spontaneous idea of the good, and then the idea of bad develops as what is not good.
On the other hand, Slave morality. What is slave morality? slave morality is literally re-sentiment revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on “intention” As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and skepticism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as ‘good’. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one’s will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well
What I have learned:
I have learned Friedrich Nietzsche view on morality. On the contrary, I don’t agree to his justification.
5 Integrative Questions
1. Do you believe in Friedrich Nietzsche’s justification?
2. Explain master morality
3. Explain slave morality
4. Do you agree in master morality?
5. What is your stand in John Arthurs belief?
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
He believes that there should be a master slave morality relationship. “Will to power”
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation?
Nietzsche states that, injury, violence, and exploitation keeps us from doing good things.
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.
Master morality is that he/she is a leader and dictates what has to done. While Slave morality are the ones who would suffice the needs of the Master.
4. Explain the Will to Power.
The will to power is the willingness of an individual to act positively to power and to have a positive end.
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?
For me, I don’t believe that it is harmful or dangerous it just depend on how people practice it.
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
To create values that would be moral and would be able to help other people to act properly.
John Arthur: Religion, Morality
Book Review Sub-Chapter 2 of Chapter 1: John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience
The Contemporary Moral Problems
Amazon Link: n/a
Quote: “Religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action”
Why do we need a religion? I believe that religion is important to us people so that our own beliefs fall down with one group of people wherein we celebrate Christ and believe in him in our own special ways. Also, the importance of religions is that when we people attend our masses, preachers teach us to perform and do things that are morally good and proper. For me, religion is a big factor where people has to be engaged in so that whenever they think of what actions to do and what decisions to make, they can apply what they have learned from those preachers and apply it to their actions.
My Learning expectation
My learning expectation for the second sub-chapter of the book is about John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience. I am not expecting anything but I promise myself one thing, to fully read and carefully understand what is being meant by this chapter and inherit the lesson that the author would like me to be knowledgeable of.
Review
Almost every one of us believes that it is important to have a religion so that we can be taught on how to perform our actions and decisions that would compromise the goodness of morality. It is very important for us to always consider if our actions is morally proper. Now let me introduce you the justification of religion in terms of morality based on John Arthur.
The main point of discussion in this sub chapter is that if religion is important for morality. John Arthur states that religion is not important for morality because he believes that it is social. It is stated that morality is social. What does it mean that morality is social? The meaning of this is that morality is from the society. One best example for this that would consider that morality is from the society is for instance, people interacts with people every day, each individuals interact differently. They will just act based on the actions from their society. If in the society, If person A treats Person B nicely, then they will properly interact morally, but if then person A treats person B in a rude manner, then person B will treat person A like what B did to A. It is justified that morality is based on the social interaction of people
What I have learned:
What I have learned is that morality can also be drawn from the society. I have learned that whenever people interact, their decisions and replies will correspond on how person A and person B treats each other. On the other hand, religion is also important to morality because with religion it will guide us and remind us how to act properly regardless of what return we will have or what return we had.
5 Integrative Questions
1. Do you believe in John Arthurs justification?
2. Explain morality and religion
3. Is religion important to you for you to be a good person?
4. Do you think religion would help morality?
5. What is your stand in John Arthurs belief?
Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different?
Yes they are, yet they are supporting elements for both morality and religion.
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Anyone is capable of knowing what is wrong and right, even without religion, they can still be moral in terms of their actions and thinking.
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
There can always be others ways of learning what is right and wrong. Even a 5 year old kid is aware of what is right or wrong even though they aren’t knowledgeable of religions. A Bottomline source for being moral is within us.
4. What is divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
The divine command theory (of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely because God either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On DCT the only thing that makes an act morally wrong is that God prohibits doing it, and all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that God prohibits torture.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
They are dependent to each other. Morality needs and supports religion while religion supports morality.
6. Dewey says that morality is social, what does this mean according to Arthur?
Morality is social in that it governs relationhips among people, defining our responsibilities to others and us to theirs.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory?
Yes.
2. If morality is social, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
By not torturing them.
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as a moral education?
Moral education teaches us to act morally . Yes a college ethics class teaches moral education.
