Quan Zhou
6/7/2009
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
1
Dedication
To my parents: Johnny Valentino Sermonia, Zheng jian hua
To my siblings: Wen Ya Zhou, Kimberly Anne Sermonia
To my classmates and friends.
2
Preface
3
Table of Content
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………02
Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………..03
4
Chapter 1
Title of the book: Cotemporary Moral Problems Seventh edition by James E. White
Favorite Quote:
“If I want only my own good, and care nothing for others, then I am selfish, but if I also want other
people to be well‐off and happy, and if I act on that desire, then my action is not selfish.”
Book Review Chapter:
James Rachel : Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Book Review
Ethical egoism is the doctrine that holds that individuals ought to do what is in their self‐interest.
Ethical egoist is the one who study about the selfishness and unselfishness of a person. Selfish person
will do anything just to achieve their goal just like what happened in the legend of Gyges. The gyges kills
the king, seduced the queen, and steals the throne. This act is definitely immoral because it is against
God’s Law. Selfishness is one attitude of mankind. People aren’t satisfied with what they have. They
want more power, possessions, and money. On the other hand, being unselfishness is good because you
can share the blessings with other people you love.
I think I have learned a great lesson from James because he clearly stated about the Egoism and
Moral Scepticism. Now I know how to prevent such thing.
Integrity Question
• What is the relation of egoism in our everyday life?
• What is Scepticism?
• Is it disadvantage to be selfish or not?
• What does a man want to be selfish?
Review Questions:
1.) Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The legend of Gyges tells us that one can be greedy when he or she can achieve powers. Just like
what Gyges do. He kills the king, seduces the queen, and steals the throne.
2.) Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism
Psychological egoism holds that all human actions are self‐interested while ethical egoism says
that all actions ought to be self‐interested.
3.) Rachels discusses 2 arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how
does he reply to them?
a.) Selfish and Unselfish
5
b.) Unselfishness leads to satisfactory of human
4.) What 3 commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis psychological egoism?
5.) State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this argument.
Because there is no proof to it.
6.) According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help other?
How can the egoist reply?
We shouldn’t hurt others because it’s not lawful, and we should consider the advantage that we
have.
Discussion Question:
1.) Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral” if so , what
exactly is his answer?
Yes, he started stating why we should be moral when he start writing about selfishness and
unselfishness.
2.) Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claim? Is it a fact that most people care about others,
even people they don’t know?
Yes , because I believe what he wrote.
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?
Yes, because they will also help us in the future.
6
Chapter 2
Title: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience
Quote: “Mortality is social”
Expectation: I expect to learn more about the religion, morality and conscience of human being.
Book Review:
In general, the article is about morality and religion. It discusses the differences between the
two. Religion is described in a society that has own beliefs. It has something to do in worship to God that
they believe who created every one of us. While morality is to ask what it would mean for a society to
exist without a social moral code. In this chapter, I understood the Divine Command Theory, know why
John Arthur said that religion and moral is different and know that Dewey means morality is social.
I have learned that religion is necessary for providing motivation for morality. It is also necessary
for guidance in what is right and wrong. Religion does not provide straightforward guidance. It needs to
be interpreted, but in order to interpret it we should bring moral beliefs to abide. Therefore, religion has
something to do with morality in some way it claims that God determines what is right and what is
wrong. John Arthur compares this to legal policies of the government, if there would be no God’s
presence there would be no moral right or wrong just as without a legislature there would be no legal
right or wrong.
He also argues that the divine command theory has some undesirable consequences. Arthur
believes that everyone who needs a religion they should believe in one thing such as religious beliefs.
In morality as being social, in this sense, it does not mean that one’s society is impossible to
criticize one another. Thus, criticizing a social morality does not respite on the ideality of the
internalization but rather on the existing individuality of everybody.
7
Integrity Questions:
What is morality?
What is religion?
What is conscience?
What is the Divine Command theory?
Who is Arthur?
Who is Dewey?
Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Religion is not needed in providing moral motivation or guidance and that the religious person
should not give to to the divine command theory’s claim that God is essential for there to be
morality. It is because that the morality and religion are independent of each other. Morality
can leave without religion and vice versa. One thing is every one of us has there own
perspectives.
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
Religion teaches about God, while moral knowledge talks about the human behavior.
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
Divine Command theory talks about God. His law is also our law. Arthur rejects this theory
because whatever God told us in the Law is correct. What if it is not written then it is wrong?
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Religion also plays a role in morality that relates to the motives of every people. If people will
have their own religion, many of them will probably do right. Normally, it begins with the
8
important point that doing what is right has something to do with morality. You can avoid
cheating if you can be a good servant of God.
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
According to Arthur, morality’s social character extends deeper. The existence of morality
assumes that we possess a social acquired language within which we think about our choices
and which alternatives we have to follow.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
Yes, because he stated so many words against the divine command theory.
2. If morality is social, as Dewy says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
We don’t have any obligations to nonhuman animals
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?
Yes, because it discusses about morality.
9
Chapter 3
Title: Friendrich Nietzche: Master and Slave morality
Quote: “The truth is hard”
Expectation: “ I expect to learn about freedom, slave and mastery.”
Book Review:
According to Wikipedia, Mr. friendrich Nietzche was a German philosopher and philologist. His
topics usually are morality, culture and religion.
As I read the book, I have learned that the master had a powerful physicality, and were defined
as independent and noble. The master morality valued pride, faith, and confidence within themselves
and maintained a strong hatred toward the weak. On the other hand, the slaves are kind, helpful, and
have sympathy towards the weak. The slaves also have warm heart, patience, and diligence.
These are the things that I encountered while reading Friendrich Niewtzche’s work. I have also
learned about humanity.
Things I have learned:
I learned about the Slave morality and Master morality. I have also learned the Will of Power.
Integrity Question:
1.) What is Slave morality?
2.) What is Master morality?
3.) What is the Will to Power?
4.) What is the “creation of values”?
5.) What is the Will to Life?
6.) What are the characteristic of Slave and master ?
Review Questions:
1.) How Does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
He characterize it as it is impossible because the rich are overwhelming in the society.
2.) What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
He’s view are likely to be in the Master Morality.
10
3.) Distinguish between master‐morality and slave‐morality
Master morality are strong and can’t be ordered around, while slave are those being
ordered around
4.) Explain the Will to Power
Will to power is precisely willing to live.
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?
Yes, because they are in the worst situation in World war 2.
2.) What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
It means that it respect whomever the creator.
11
Chapter 4
Title: Mary Midgley : Trying Out One’s New Sword
Quote: “Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them.”
Expectation: “I expect to learn more about ways of sword”
Book Review:
According to Wikipedia, Mary Midgley is an English philosopher. She is an expert on religion,
science, ethics and human relationship with animal. She was also an author of a lot of books.
Mary Midgley talks about moral isolationism which means it is never correct to judge other
people religion or cultural act. If we want others to respect ours, we should just ignore or avoid them or
by following what they do. This is the way to respect other religion.
For me, I never agree with tsujigiri because it is so brutal. It is never correct to hurt others. We
should respect the values of other people.
Things I have learned: I have learned to respect other cultures.
Integrity Questions
1. What does “trying out one’s new sword” mean?
2. Who is Mary Midgley?
3. What are the other cultures?
4. Do we need to respect other cultures?
Review Questions
1. What is “moral isolationism”?
Moral isolationism is criticizing of other culture that you have never encountered.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about thus custom?
Tsujigiri is a culture of Japanese where a samurai needed to sharpen their sword to cut a thing
or a human from edge to edge. If it fails, they are disgraceful.
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
They are doing impure things like the Nazis.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
Midgley basis is that they don’t know the culture of other people that’s why they are criticizing it.
Discussion Questions
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of
Nietzsche? Why or why not?
12
Yes, because Nietzsche supports Master and slave morality. We should not judge other people
by their status in life.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal?
Explain your answer.
Yes, because human wants to know more about other things.
13
Chapter 5
Title: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Quote: “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself”
Expectation: I expect to learn more about Utilitarianism, and the moral lessons behind it.
Book Review:
Utilitarianism is about happiness and pleasures. For me, I always attained happiness and
pleasures from my family, friends and the thing that I played with. I never felt anything insecure when I
am with them or playing with them.
Higher pleasures and lower pleasures, this are thing that being tackled in this chapter. Higher
pleasures are those that satisfy us to the max, while the lower pleasures it also satisfies but only a little.
It may act differently on everyone. Some people might experience a certain thing which he considered a
higher pleasure, while the other for them it is a lower pleasure.
Things I have learned:
We should consider Utilitarianism.
The higher and lower pleasures
Integrity Questions:
Who is John Stuart Mill?
What is Utilitarianism?
What is happiness to human?
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.
A human does not want to lie or steal from other people. They want to earn it through hardship
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
Mill does not agree with the Doctrine.
14
3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
Lower pleasures is being discontent, while higher pleasure is satisfaction.
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
According to Mill, everyone happiness must be considered.
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.
People see happiness as earth materials which you can hold or own.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
No, happiness is not always pleasure and the absence of pain because you can’t get it from your
parents.
2. Does Mill convince you that the so‐called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What
about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
For me, the higher pleasures possibly the lower pleasures of other people.
3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of
utility.” Is this true or not?
It is false.
4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defected. Do you
agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the
proof so that it is not defective?
Yes, I agree it is defected.
15
Chapter 6
Title: James Rachels The debate over Utilitarianism
Quote: “Man does not strive after happiness, only the Englishman does that”
Expectation: “I expect to learn more about Utilitarianism of James Rachels”
Book Review:
This chapter discussed about the debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachel. He said that the
classical utilitarianism can be summarized into three schemes. First one is the consequences in judging
the actions that are right and wrong. The second is the measuring the amount of happiness or
unhappiness of each people. According to the meaning of hedonism, it is the same as happiness that is
equal to pleasure minus pain. Lastly, the calculation of happiness or unhappiness, it is because each
person’s wellbeing is equally essential.
Happiness is what people want for their lives. It is the only thing that is ultimately good for every
person and it is known as hedonism. Generally, happiness is a kind of broad overall satisfaction and
goodness in life. Many fundamentally good things that are desirable like artistry, knowledge, love and
pleasure. They believe that basically happiness is the one ultimate goal of everyone.
Contemporary utilitarianism speaks of interest satisfaction putting the horse before. The best is
when you know the preference of satisfaction of all affected persons. This satisfaction brings pleasure.
There are also three arguments in utilitarianism, such as, justice, rights and promise. Justice is an
argument that only someone has a witness against the innocent person and it is called fairness. While
rights, every person has their own rights, like right to speak, right to fight for their beliefs, etc. These
rights can make them satisfied in everything they want to pursue. Finally, the promise, in every promise
there is an obligation to another party and it is not easy to escape from it. It will also raise a satisfaction
on both parties when an obligation has been reached.
16
What I have learned: I have learned how important to be fair to each other. Happiness is important for
each and every one of us.
Integrity Questions:
Who is James Rachels?
What is the debate over Utilitarianism?
How important are justice, rights, and promises?
Does happiness matter? In what way?
Review Questions:
1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed in this proposition. What are they?
The first propositions are the consequences on judging what is right or wrong. Certainly, the
best consequences are the right actions and the least consequences are the wrong ones.
Secondly, measuring the happiness and unhappiness are only thing that matters in assessing
consequences. Finally, the calculation of happiness or unhappiness are both necessary because
everyone’s wellbeing is equally important.
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders utilitarianism respond to this problem?
The problem with hedonism is the thought that only happiness is the one eventual good for
everybody. One defender says that her happiness ended when she was injured in an accident
and for that reason she cannot play piano anymore. As a response, we cannot stay away in any
tragedies just to make the pianist happy.
3. What are the objections about justice, rights and promises?
The argument in justice is not every tragedy its witness to have fairness. In rights, everybody has
their own rights to be happy. Promise has an obligation to everyone.
4. Distinguish between rule and act utilitarianism. How does rule‐utilitarianism reply to this
objection?
The act is old version while the rule is the newer version of utilitarianism.
5. What is the third line of defense?
The third line of defense is a small group of present‐day utilitarian, and they often have different
insights in anti‐utilitarian arguments.
17
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, because I’m not a utilitarian.
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?
Everybody should be aware of their surrounding especially those animals and natures.
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you
agree?
Yes, I agree because I believe that merit should be given importance as a justice.
18
Chapter 7
Quote:
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law”
Expectation:
I expect that I will gain important information about Kant’s philosophical thinking about
categorical imperative.
Book Review:
There is no implied limit or qualification in giving moral considerations that will take
affect to the determination to give moral considerations. Maintaining one’s moral goodness is
very important in every condition that being pursued by people. Pleasure and intelligence has
also something to do with good will because it does not require giving up on every person’s
moral certainties.
The goodness of good should not depend on any particular situations that are obtaining.
Therefore, Kant illustrates that a good will must also be good in itself and not only to the good
value on any meticulous happenings.
19
One of the formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative is the Formula of Universal
Law of Nature which effects to sum up a decision process of moral way of thinking. People
should act in any circumstances that govern all normal means and by natural law, act as
proposing your self. Always consider whether your saying is considerable in a place governed by
this law of nature.
Base on Kant’s study, there are also two duties imposed by the first formulation, such as,
the perfect duty and the imperfect duty. These duties consists respect for the law. These are also
created by rules and laws. Thus, if we have our own duty, our inspiration is to respect the law
and do our responsibilities and duties.
Integrity Questions:
• What is a maxim?
Review Questions:
20
Categorical imperative is introduced by Immanuel Kant. According to him that the
human beings have an important role in creation from which all duties of every person
derives, whereas hypothetical imperative induces action in a specified condition or to do
something that will satisfy our desired goal.
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.
From this formulation, he bring to a close that a moral proposition that is true should not
be the one to tie in any particular conditions. Kant also undertook that a moral maxim
must have universality. The formulation is divided to two, such as, perfect duty and
imperfect duty. Categorical imperative sets that a duty is necessity to act out of respect
for the law.
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and
end) and explain it.
The second version of categorical imperative has a free will, a source of all normal action.
By combining the second to the first formulation, a person has a perfect duty due to not
using the humanity of them.
Discussion Question:
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.
The two versions of the categorical imperative have their own different expressions. The
first focuses on duties while the second discusses about the source of all human action.
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.
21
No, all duties has its moral worth because you will take many responsibilities and
obligations to reach your purpose.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first
formulation) can be used to justify non-moral actions. Is this a good criticism?
22
Chapter 8
Title: Aristotle Happiness and Virtue
Quote: “ For men are good in but one way, but bad in many.”
Expectation: I expect to learn about happiness and virtue which will be tackled in this chapter.
Book Review:
According to Wikipedia, Aristotle was a philosopher from Greek. He was one of the first students
of Plato who was also a great philosopher. He was also the founder of western philosophy.
Happiness and virtue are the topic which he chose. Happiness is something which cannot be
found in pleasure. Virtue is something you gained from hard work or intense training. I have many hard
experiences which I endure it. Aristotle taught me to stay happy regardless of what may happen.
Things I have learned:
I have learned the differences of happiness and virtue from pleasure. I have also learned moral virtue is
not earned easily. You have to strive hard to achieve it.
Integrity Question:
What is happiness?
What is Virtue?
Who is Aristotle?
Review Questions:
1.) What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to
pleasure?
According to Aristotle, happiness is not a pleasure. It is gained from experience or training to
achieve virtue.
2.) How does Aristotle explain moral virtue?
According to Aristotle, moral virtue is attainted through hard work.
3.) Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot
be happy?
23
Yes, everyone can be happy.
Discussion Questions:
1.) Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong
with a life of pleasure?
Life of pleasure is something you can’t gain for eternal. Those are money, and flirting.
2.) Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree
or not?
I do not agree because not everyone is doing well even though they are happy.
24
Chapter 9
Title: Joel Feinberg The Nature and value of rights
Quote: “Charitable contributions are more like gratuitous services, favours, and gifts than like
repayments of debts”
Expectations: I expect to learn about Joel Feinberg. And his topic about the nature and value of rights.
Book Review:
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.
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Feinberg
This chapter is about the rights of human. We should treat each one of us equally. I personally
don’t want others to treat me like a trash so I don’t treat them that way. The idea of personal desert is
that we deserve what we achieve. I think we need to strive hard so that we can have the best.
Things I have learned: I have learned to understand more about the rights of human and the rights of
nature.
Integrity Questions:
Who is Joel Feinberg?
What is the value of rights?
What is the Nature?
Review Questions:
1.) Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?
Nowheresville is a place of no rules. You can’t have equality and peace. It is very different
from ours because we have human rights.
25
2.) Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinberg’s
position on this doctrine?
This doctrine is from duty to rights.
3.) How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert
work in Nowheresville?
Feinberg explain that everyone deserves the best when they work hard for it.
4.) Explain the notion of a sovereign right‐monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville
according to Feinberg?
This are the rights of the Monopoly which is not truly the right of human being.
5.) What are claim‐rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?
Claim –rights are the rights of human.
Discussion Questions:
1.) Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
Yes, Feinberg shows his thought on how to make rights for each and every one of us.
2.) Can you give a noncircular definition of claim‐right?
No.
26
Chapter 10
Title: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Quote: “In practice the government will have the last word on what an individual’s rights are…”
Expectation:
I expect to learn more about Ronald Dworkin‘s chapter about taking rights seriously.
Book Review:
Ronald Dworkin graduated from Harvard University studied about the institution of rights. In this
chapter, he explains about taking rights seriously. According to Dworkin, rights were dominated by high
officials in a government in ruling a nation. It has a strong sense in needing to see moral rights. These
rights were protected by laws and policies in a state. He also discussed the differences between legal
rights and moral rights. Legal rights are often beliefs by different people who think that these rights are
real and unchangeable unless the congress will say so, whereas, the moral rights are principles or
created by the church or a specific religion. An example of legal right that is not a moral right is following
the signs and policies in a roadway. Moral right that is not a legal right is visiting the church every
Sunday.
Dworkin also contributed some important ideas on equality. He mentioned two models in the
institutions of rights. The first one is about the government’s policies in securing all individual beings. It
illustrates the rights between an individual person and the demands of the society. The second model is
more on political equality. From the chapter, the first model had caught Dworkin’s interests.
Things I have learned:
I have learned how to take rights seriously. I also learned the differences between legal rights from
moral rights.
Integrity Questions:
Who is Ronald Dworkin?
Describe the two models of Dworkin?
Why should we take rights seriously?
How important is the government’s law?
Differentiate legal rights from moral rights.
What is the institution of rights?
Review Questions:
27
1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected
by the U.S. Constitution?
Rights were dominated by high officials in a government in ruling a nation. It has a strong sense
in needing to see moral rights. These were protected by laws and policies in a state.
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 often beliefs by different people who think that these rights are real and
unchangeable unless the congress will say so, whereas, the moral rights are principles or created
by the church or a specific religion. An example of legal right that is not a moral right is following
the signs and policies in a roadway. Moral right that is not a legal right is visiting the church
every Sunday.
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the right of its citizens? Which
does Dworkin find more attractive?
The first model is about the government’s policies in securing all individual beings. The second
model is more on political equality. From the chapter, the first model had caught Dworkin’s
interests.
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
Political and social are the two important things behind the institution of rights of Ronald
Dwrokin.
Discussion Question:
1. Does a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not?
Yes, every person has the right to break every law in the government but s/he should be ready
for the consequences that may happen to them.
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
Base on my readings, Dworkin’s study has nothing to do with Mill’s utilitarianism.
3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not?
Base on my opinion, Kant will allow these rights in a strong sense.
28
Chapter 11
Title: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Quote:
“Justice as fairness begins… one of the most general of all choices …”
Expectation:
I expect that it will help me understand the theory of justice by John Rawls. I also anticipate to learn how
important justice to all individuals.
What I have learned:
I have learned the two important principles by John Rawls. The two are both important principles, the
first one is about equality in laws and policies while the second principle is about inequality in
distributions.
Book Review:
Base from the Wikipedia, John Rawls was born on February 21, 1921. He was
an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. Rawls received
the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter
presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of
learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself." (Retrieved from www.wikipedia .com, June 2,
2009).
Generally, this chapter explains the two principles by John Rawls. The two principles are liberty
and wealth. The first principle is the principle of liberty which has something to do with the law and
policy accordance of all people which is to be subject as an equal treatment of the government. This
principle discusses more about equality among people. While the second principle is wealth, which
illustrates that the richness of an individual are unequal to each other. Some are highly paid and some
are insufficiently paid up. Those are the two principles that we are all encountering from now and then.
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he tried to merge liberty and equality in a principled way.
By explaining that justice is fairness and it is his most famous approach in philosophical thinking. He also
tried to connect this liberty principle to distributive justice such as wealth. His first principle protects the
equality and freedom of every people.
Integrity Questions:
Who is John Rawls?
What are the two principles of John Rawls?
Differentiate the two principles.
29
Do you agree to the two principles made by Rawls?
Which is more important, the first or the second principle? Why?
Review Questions:
1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position?
John Rawls’s conception of justice has two principles. The first principle explains the equality
while the second principle explains the social and economic inequalities. These principles
generally explain that justice is fairness.
2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.
The first principle explains the equal right between people with freedom same as the
freedom of others. Justice regulates and follows some various laws and policies to be
followed by the government people.
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be
sacrificed?
The second principle discusses the social and economic inequalities to the extend of the
distribution of income and wealth. In our economy, not all people have the same
responsibilities, chains of commands and these make our society unequal.
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 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?
The first principle allows people to do what they want because we have our own freedom. But
we should know the limitations, if ever we had done something that is beyond the limitation we
have to face our own risk to it. Yes, people may do whatever they want to do in life. They are
not restricted to choose people they want to be with. All of that are freedoms, people may
choose what they want especially in their own house. But we should always know our
limitations.
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
30
Yes, it is possible. About the equal distribution like income, we do not choose this, but we have
to take it because it is the extent of our service that has to be paid.
31
Chapter 12
Title: Annette C Baier: The Need for more than justice
Quote: “Justice as Fairness is not a complete contract theory.”
Expectation: I expect to learn about the Theory of justice.
Book Review:
Annette C. Baier (née Stoop) (born 1929) is a well‐known moral philosopher and Hume scholar,
focusing in particular on Hume's moral psychology. For most of her career she taught in the philosophy
department at the University of Pittsburgh, having moved there from Carnegie Mellon University. She
retired to her native Dunedin, New Zealand, where she graduated from the University of Otago. She is
also well known for her contributions to feminist philosophy and to the philosophy of mind, where she
was strongly influenced by her former colleague, Wilfrid Sellars. Her husband is the philosopher Kurt
Baier.
She is a former President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, an
office reserved for the elite of her profession. Baier received an honorary Doctor of Literature from the
University of Otago in 1999. In October 2007, Baier was ranked 72nd in a list of "Top 100 living geniuses"
compiled by The Daily Telegraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Baier
Annette disapproves with Kantian view because she believes that History will repeat itself. The
theory doesn’t show great result in the past. So she sticks with her theory and criticizes Kantian theory.
Justice perspective are likely what men likes, and care perspective are likely what women likes but
sometimes it can be opposite. Nowadays, more women doesn’t want others to see them asking for help.
They want equality with men.
Things I have learned:
I have learned what Justice perspective.
I have learned what care perspective.
Integrity Questions:
Who is Annette?
What is Justice?
What is fairness?
Review Questions:
32
1.) Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these
perspectives develop?
These perspectives develop through women who prefer justice rather than care because
women nowadays don’t want to belittle.
2.) Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of
this theory?
They criticize it as nobody was interested in that theory.
3.) Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What
are these differences?
The differences are the emotions, the freedom of choice, and the equality.
4.) Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?
She attacks because she believes it was a failure.
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?
She means that when there is a good idea . we should adapt it and accept it .
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?
She thinks that Kantian view is a failure because of what had happened in the past. That why
she dislike it.
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?
I think it is very important to me because I want to have freedom.
33