A CONTEMPORARY MORAL

PROBLEMS

An ITETHIC READER

Created By:
Paolo Miguel M. Angeles
CHAPTER 1: JAMES RACHELS: EGOISM AND MORAL SCEPTICISM

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that James Rachels will talk about egoism and
moral scepticism and how can it be applied in such situation.

QUOTE

Indeed, a man without any sympathy at all would scarcely be recognizable as a man."

REVIEW

In this article, James Rachels talks about egoism. Basically, egoism is about the
selfishness of the people that they act within themselves. Egoism has two views that
Rachels discussed in this article, the psycological egoism and ethical egoism.
Psycological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is,
that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest. Ethical egoism on the
other hand, is by contrast, a normative view about how men ought to act. It is the view
that, regardless of how men do in fact behave, they have no obligation to do anything
except what it is in their own interests.

Rachels also discussed two arguments for psycological egoism in this article. The first
argument is about a person never volunteers to do any actions, if they don't want to do it.
According to Rachels, this is wrong since a person sometimes have no option but to do it.
This argument shows that a person who only cares his own interest is sometimes called as
selfish act. The example that was raised in the argument is a person who chose to help
someone rather than resting. The person is said to choose to help someone because he is
merely doing what he wants to do rather than resting in his house and he is doing
unselfish act. The second argument is that unselfish actions produced self-satisfaction in
the person doing the act. With this arguments, Rahcels detect confusions in the
psycological egoism. First is about the confusion of selfishness with self interest.
According to Rachels, both terms are totally different because being self-interested does
not entail that one will be selfish. Being selfish means ignoring the interest of others in
which their interest tends not to be ignored. Second is about the confusion that every
action is based either from self-interest or other motives. The third confusion is that a
concern for one's own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare
of others. Another topic that was discussed in this article is the argument which says that
ethical egoism is inconsistent. Rachels didn't accept this argument. According to Rachels,
there is no inconsistency because the ethical egoism does not apply to all scenarios. There
can be sometimes a conflict with what you desire and the welfare of other people but it
depends to the person to choose the right decision.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Definition of egoism
Differences of ethical and psycological egoism
Selfishness and self-interest

INEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is egoism?
2. What is the difference between ethical and psychological egoism?
3. What is the difference between selfishness and self-interest?
CHAPTER 2: JOHN ARTHUR: RELIGION, MORALITY AND CONSCIENCE

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that John Arthur will talk about in the topics
Religion, Morality and Conscience and how can it be applied in real life situation.

QUOTE

“Only through the powers of imagination can we exercise our moral powers envisioning
with the powers of judgment what conscience requires.”

REVIEW

In this article, John Arthur talks about three main topics, Religion, Morality and
Conscience. He talks about the difference of religion and morality respectively. John
Arthur's first view is that religion is necessary in order for people to be motivated to do
what is moral. According to Arthur, people seem to be able to find sufficient motivation
to be moral by reference to non religious ends. Some non religious motivations to be
moral are fear of being caught, concerns over what others will think, worry about how a
person will feel about himself/herself if he/she does something immoral, and the simple
motivation that being moral is the most likely way to establish the relationships with
others which one wants and needs. Arthur also stated that the reason why he rejects the
view that religion is necessary in order for people to be motivated to do the moral thing is
that people do not usually cite religious motivations as grounds for being moral is
because he thinks that people who have no religious views can be motivated to be moral
for reasons such as, being moral help us build relationships I want and need, being moral
pays off in the end and help us gain what we want. The second position which John
Arthur identifies with the view that religion is necessary for morality is that there would
be no way to know what is right or wrong unless God told us. Arthur rejects this for the
reason that, non religious moralities can be derived from an appeal to human consensus
and to the desirability of certain behaviors for the furtherance of human relationships and
causes. Arthur also stated that some so-called divine commands are unclear, they
contradict our sense of what is right.

This article also discuss the relationship of religion and morality. Religion and morality
are influencing each other in different areas in which, moral rules not based on religion
are consistent with thise taught in a religious tradition, moral wrongs taught in religion
are not prohibited by moral systems not based on religion, moral obligations required in
religion are not imposed by non religious based moral systems and in which moral
obligations derived from religious tradition actually contradict non religious morality.
John Arthur also discuss the topic about conscience for the notion "Morality is social".
According to Arthur, conscience is a result of an individual's concern of his public
impression. Arthur also quotes what Dewey states that "Conscience demands we occupy
the position of others". According to Arthur, Dewey is not sayin that what is right is
finally to be determined by the rections of actually existing other people or even by the
reaction of society as a whole. Morality is therefore inherently social in many ways it
depends on social interactions and governs our interactions with others in society.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Definition of religion and morality

How morality and religion influenced each other
Morality is necessary for religion

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is the difference between religion and morality?

2. What is Divine Command Theory?
3. How are morality and region connected?
CHAPTER 3: FRIEDRICH NIETZCHE: MASTER AND SLAVE MORALITY

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that Friedrich Nietzche will discuss in Master and
Slave Morality and how can it be applied in real life situation.

QUOTE

"Fear is the mother of morality."

REVIEW

In this article, Nietzche discussed two fundamental types of morality; Master morality
and slave morality. According to Nietzche, master morality weighs actions on a scale of
good or bad consequences.Nietzche also defines master morality as the morality of the
strong-willed. He criticizes the view that good is everything that is helpful and bad is
what is harmful. Nietzche also argues that what is useful has always been defined as
good, therefore usefulness is goodnessas a value. He further explains that for these
strong-willed men, the good is the noble, strong and powerful while the bad is the weak,
cowardly, timid and petty. According to Nietzche, 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. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining
values; it does not need approval; it judges, what is harmful to me is harmful in itself; it
knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; it is value-creating" (Friedrich
Nietzche). Slave morality on the other hand, weighs actions on a scale of good or evil
intentions. Nietzche also stated that, a particular morality is inseparable from the
formation of a particular culture. Unlike master morality, slave morality is literally
revaluing that which the master values. According to Nietzche, slave morality is weak.
Slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. He also stated that,
slave morality is created in opposition to what master moralit values as good. He also
stated that, the essence ofslave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength
but by careful subversion. Nietche saw this as an contradiction. "And how could there
exist a common good. The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has
ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for
the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies, for the refined, and in sum,
all rare things for the rare" (Friedrich Nietzche).
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Definitions of master and slave morality

Difference of master and slave morality
Mater morality for strong-willed
Slave morality is weak

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is master morality?

2. What is slave morality?
3. What are the arguments regarding master and slave morality?
CHAPTER 4: MARY MIDGELY: TRYING OUT ONE'S NEW SWORD

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that Mary Midgely will talk about in Trying Out
One's New Sword and how can it be applied in such situation.

QUOTE

"If we can't judge other cultures, can we really judge our own? Our efforts to do so will
be much damaged if we are really deprived of our opinions about other societies, because
these provide the range of comparison, the spectrum of alternatives against which we set
what we want to understand. We would have to stop using the mirror which anthropology
so helpfully holds up to us."

REVIEW

In this article, Mary Midgely discussed the moral isolationism of an individual pertaining
on his/her judegement. Midgely takes on a variant of the ethical relativist view, one that
argues, because we cannot understand other cultures, we cannot judge other cultures.
Midgely calls it moral isolationism, a position which further hold that the world is
divided into separate socities, sealed units, each with its own system of thought. Moral
isolationism is like a judgement with its own culture, it forbids to make opinions among
other cultures.

Mary Midgely focuses on her five arguements in this article. First is that there is a
contradiction between the claim that we cannot understand these cultures, and the claim
that we must respect them. Midgely claims that we have to understand someone and/or
some culture well enough to make a favorable judgement. The second argument is, does
the isolating barrier work to also forbid others from criticizing us. According to Midgely
if we accept the critiques of Western civilization offered by members of other culture,
then we must consistently be willing to accept the possibility of our offering critique of
other cultures. The third agrument is, does the isolating barrier assumed by the moral
isolationist block praise and blame. Mary Midgely states that if we accept the possibility
of praising elements of other culture, then there is no isolating barrier which would forbid
critical assessment. The fourth argument is, what is involved in judging. Here, Midgley
introduces an important distinction between crude judgement and judgement per se. She
also points out that there is much that we don't understand in our own culture too. We
could not judge within our own culture those elements we don't understand. The fifth
argument is, If we can't judge other cultures, can we really judge our own. Midgely's
point here is that judgement requires some external criteria and this can be provided by
other
Midgely's central argument applies to ethical relativism, the consequence of accepting the
claim that we cannot judge others. Midgely states that the power of moral judgement is
not a luxury, it is a necessity. When we judge something to be bad or good, better worse
han something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid. If we accept
something as a serious moral truth about one culture, we can't refuse to apply it to other
cultures as well. If we refuse to do this, we're not just taking the other culture seriously.
This leads to Mary Midgely's conclusion "Morally as well as physically, there is only one
world, and we all have to live in it".

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Definition of moral isolationism

How moral isolationism interacts with the judgement of people
Implication of the title from its content

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is moral isolationism?

2. What is judgement?
3. What does Midgley criticizes in this chapter?
CHAPTER 5: JOHN STUART MILL: UTILITARIANISM

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that John Stuart Mill will talk about Utilitarianism
and how can it be applied in such situation.

QUOTE

“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.”

REVIEW

In this article, John Stuart Mill discussed the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory.
Mill's argument comprises five chapters. First chapter serves an introduction. In the
second chapter, Mill discussed the definition of utilitarianism, and presents some
misconceptions about the theory. The third chapter focuses on rewards that utilitarianism
can offer. In his fourth chapter, he discussed the methods of proving the validity of
utilitarianism. And in his fifth chapter, Mill writes about the connection between justice
and utility and argues that happiness is the foundation of justice.

Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle 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". Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of
pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are
rooted in one's higher faculties should be wighted more heacily than baser pleasures.
According to Mill, people's achievement of goals and ends should be counted as part of
their happiness. John Stuart Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides with natural
sentiments that originate from humans' social nature. If society were to embrace
utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally
binding. According to Mill, happiness is the sole basis or morality and that people never
desire anything but happiness. Mill supports this claim by showing that all the other
objects of people's desire are either means to happiness or included in the definition of
happiness. He also explains that at length that the sentiment of justice is actually based on
utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. Mill
also discussed that, with the principle of utility, virtues become a part of the end, which is
pleasure. Examples of which is the love for power, fame, and money. According to Mill,
it is not more of physical pleasure, but for these virtues that give pleasure to our inner
being, that will make us happy in the end. The theory of utilitarianism has been criticized
for many reason. Critics hold that it does not provide adequate protection for individual
rights, that not everything can be measured by the same sandard, and that happiness is
more complez than reflected by the theory. This artice of John Stuart Mill represents his
attempt to respond to these criticism and thereby to provide a more complex moral
theory.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Definition of utilitarianism
Principles about utilitarianism
Virtues are part of the end
Happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is utilitarianism?
2. What are the principles about utilitarianism?
3. How does John Stuart Mill defines the meaning of happiness?
CHAPTER 6: JAMES RACHELS: THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn facts, theories, claims that James Rachels will talk about in The Debate
Over Utilitarianism and how can it be applied in such situation.

QUOTE

"The ultimate doctrine is that, happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an
end; all other things being desirable as means to that end"

REVIEW

In this article, James Rachels summed up utilitarianism in three propositions. The first
proposition is that actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of
consequences. According to him, if we did good to everyone else, then we will receive
blessing from God but if we made wrong doings, then our action will be judged in the
society. Second of the three proposition is, what matters is the great amount of happiness
than the unhappiness of the cause of doing action. In this proposition, the amount of
happiness and unhappiness is the basis in assessing consequences. The third proposition
is, we should measure the happiness of everyone else. Everyone will be calculated based
on their happiness. Rachel discussed his own view about how utilitarianism is right in
considering consequences of actions, but is incorrect in ignoring other moral
considerations.

James Rachels also discussed hedoism in this chapter which means happiness is the
ultimate good while unhappiness is the ultimate evil. Rachels considers it as a
misunderstanding of happiness. According to him, happiness is not something that is
recognized as good and sought for its own sake with other things appreciated only as
means of bringing it about. Instead happiness is a response we have to the attainment of
things that we recognized as goods, independently and in their own right. Utilitarian tried
to respond with this by way of different kind of utilitarianism. They suggest ideal
utilitarianism which means that right actions are the ones that has the best results,
however goodness is measured. Rachels also include arguments about utilitarianism
which involves justice, rights and promises. Utilitarianism is not always right. There are
considerations in utilitarianism that violates justice, rights and promises. This is one
aspect Rachels argues about utilitarianism. To sum this up, we should consider
everyone's happiness regardless of the rightness and wrongness of an act. "Happiness is
desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as mean
to that end".
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

Utilitarianism is not always correct

Utilitarianism sometimes violates justice, rights and promises
Act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is hedoism?
2. Do you agree that utilitarianism comes into conflict with common sense?
CHAPTER 7: IMMANUEL KANT'S CATEGORICAL IIMPERATIVE

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect and would like to learn what it Categorical Imperative and how I can apply it in
my everyday life.

REVIEW

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers who taught about morality.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is now considered as the most important method in
determining morality. It is a way of questioning whether the action is good and should be
done.

Categorical Imperative deals with universality, meaning an act should not only be good
for a person’s desire, rather it should also be good for humanity or could be applied to all.
It is the good that should be followed by all. What is morally good, should also be good
for in all aspects. Kant stated that people may lead to certain “ends” while having
different “means” (driving forces). Ends are usually based on personal and/ physical
needs and wants. But in the Categorical Imperative, the end is also the means to itself.
People are innately good. They do good things not because they are asked to or it is their
duty to do the good, rather it is their purpose to do and be good regardless of their
intention.

According to Kant, in order to determine the morality of any situation we must first, act
only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would
become a universal law. Second, act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end. A person should act as though you were, through your
maxims, a law making member of a kingdom of ends.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

I learned what Categorical Imperative is and how it should be applied in my life. I also
learned that what is good for me, should also be good for all in order for it to be
considered the real good.

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. Who is Immanuel Kant?

2. What is Categorical Imperative?
3. How do you determine the morality of an act?
CHAPTER 8: ARISTOTLE'S HAPPIJNESS AND VIRTUE

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn and understand Aristotle’s meaning of happiness.

REVIEW

Aristotle argues that people seek for happiness and that happiness is not pleasure but an
activity of the soul in union with virtue. Virtue is having the appropriate attitude towards
pain and pleasure. Moral virtue is obtained from training and habit. It is the mean
between vices of excess and deficiency. It is through everyday practice that the virtue is
obtained.

Happiness is not measured with material things and how easy the life of a person is. For
Aristotle, happiness is obtained through the practice of moral virtues. In order for a
person to reach happiness, he/she should practice the virtuous and flourish from it.
Happiness doesn’t have an end. Whenever a person reaches his/her happiness, he/she
grows as a person which leads to a need for more practice of the virtue.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

I learned that happiness is different from pleasure and happiness could only be obtained
through continuous practice of virtues in order for a person to grow as a better person.

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is happiness?
2. How can real happiness be achieved?
3. What is virtue?
4. How is virtue related to pleasure?
CHAPTER 9: JOEL FEINBERG'S THE NATURE AND VALUE OF RIGHTS

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn the importance of rights, facts, theories, claims that Joel Feinberg will
talk about in The Nature and Value of Rights and how can it be applied in such situation.

QUOTE

"Having rights enables us to "stand like men," to look others in the eye, and to feel in
some fundamental way the equal of anyone. To think of oneself as the holder of rights is
not to be unduly but properly proud, to have that minimal self respect that is necessary to
be worthy of the love and esteem of others."

REVIEW

In this article, Joel Feinberg wants to demonstrate that rights are morally important. He
does it by making an imaginary thought which he called Nowheresville. He states that
nowheresville is a world like our own except that the people does not have the concept of
rights. Feinberg also discuss the -so-called "doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights
and duties". This is the doctrine that all duties entail other people's rights and all rights
entail other people's duties. For Feinberg, the word "duty" is associated with actions that
are due, the payments of debts to creditors, the keeping of agrrements with promises etc.
With this facts, the word "duty" is used for any action we feel we must do for whatever
reason and and for any action understood to be required whether by the rights of others,
or by law, or by higher authority, or by conscience. In this sense, the logical correlativity
doctrine often fails.

Feinberg introduced two moral practices into Nowheresville. These are the practices of
personal desert and sovereign monopoly of rights. In the notion of personal desert, when
a person is said to deserve something, there would be a certain propriety in virtue of the
kind of person he is or in virtue of some specific thing he has done. In this case, he could
be said not merely to deserve the good things but also to have a right to it. But in some
cases, if the recipient is not given propriety, even when he highly expect it, he cannot
complain to such person because he has no obligation to do so. On the other hand,
sovereign monopoly of rights had a certain duty to treat his subjects well but this duty
was owed not to the subjects directly but to a higher subjects or being, the sovereign, who
made and claims a certain rule.

According also to Feinberg, the link between personal rights and claiming is reflected in
the standard usage in which claim-rights are distinguished from other mere liberties,
immunities, and powers, sometimes also called as rights with which they are easily
confused. They have no notion of rights, so they do not have a notion of what is their due
and they do not claim before they take. With this sense of claim-rights, the rights
logically entail other people's duties. Having rights makes claiming possible but the
clamming gives rights their specific moral significance. This feature of rights is
connected about whatis to be a human being. The main point of Feinberg in his writing is
that respect for persons may simply be respect for their rights, so that there cannot be the
one without the other; and what is called "human dignity" may simply be the
recognizable capacity to assert claims. To respect a person then, think of him as
possessed of human dignity.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

The importance of rights

Concept of claim-rights, personal desert and sovereign right-monopoly

The doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties

Nowheresville situation

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is the difference between personal desert and sovereign monopoly of rights?
2. What is the correlation of rights and duties?
CHAPTER 10: RONALD DWORKIN'S TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn the facts, theories, claims that Ronald Dworkin will talk about in Taking
Rights Seriously and how can it be applied in real life situation.

QUOTE
"There is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something and
saying that it is the "right" thing for him to do, or he does no "wrong" in doing it."

REVIEW

On Dworkin's view, if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to

interfere with them. This article focuses on four main points: The rights of citizens, rights
and the rights to break the law, controversial rights and why takes rights seriously. In the
rights of citizens, Dworkin stated that the constitution fuses legal and moral issues by
making the validity of a law depend on the answer to complex moral problems like the
problem of whether a particular statute respects the inherent of the quality of men. This
fusion prompts two questions such as, does the Constitution recognize all the moral rights
that the citizens have and does the Constitution imply that the citizens have a duty to
obey he law even if it invades their moral rights. According to Dworkin, even if the
Constitution is perfect it would not follow that the Supreme Court could guarantee the
individual rights of citizens. A supreme court decision is still a legal decision and it must
take into account precedent and institutional considerations like relations between the
Court and Congress, as well as morality.

Rights and rights to break the law on the other hand, Dworkin stated that, in most cases
when we say that someone has "right to do something, we imply that it would be wrong
to interfere with his doing it, or at least that some special grounds are needed for
justifying any interference. This will concern Conservatives and liberals. For them, each
citizen has a moral duty to obey law. Men have duty to obey law but have the right to
follow their consciences when it conflicts with that duty. Dworkin also stated that a
soceity that claims to recognize rights at all must abandon the notion of a general duty to
obey the law that holds in all cases. He also emphasize that all these propositions concern
the strong sense of right. We must remember that reasonable men can differ about
whether he has a right against the Government, therefore a reasonable men can oppose
him in good faith. We must take into account the various consequences his acts will have,
he must not go beyond the rights he can in good faith claim to acts that violate the rights
of others.

In controversial rights, everyone who believes in right agrees that a man has a moral right
to speak his mind in a non-provocative way on matters of political concern and that the
State must go to great pains to protect. This prompts the question, does the right of free
speech protect this sort of speech. To answer this question, two models can be used, the
balance model and right as trumps. In balance model, going too far in either direction is
wrong, we must strike a balance. According to Dworkin, this approach again fails to take
right seriously and again acts as if society itself had right. There are two ideas that justify
strong rights against government, the human dignity (certain ways of treating an
individual fail to appreciate her worth as a human) and political equity (everyone should
have the same freedom of decision). While right as trumps, it says that abridging a right
is much more serious than inflating one.
Lastly, the question was, "why take rights seriously?". Dworkin said at the beginning of
the essay that he wanted to show what a government must do that professes to recognize
individual rights. Dworkin also dispense with the claim that citizen never have a right to
break its law and, it must not define citizens' rights so that these are cut off for supposed
reason of the general good. According to Dworkin, the institution requires an act of faith
on the part of minorities, because the scope of their rights will be controversial whenever
they are important and because the officers of the majority will act on their own notions
of what these rights really are. They must show that they understand what rights are and
they must not cheat on the full implications of the doctrine. "The Government will not
reestablish respect for law without giving the law some claim to respect".

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

The rights of the citizen

The rights and the rights to break the law
Controversial rights
How to take rights seriously

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. What is Moral rights?

2. Does all constitution recognize all moral rights a citizen have?
3. Does anyone has the right to break a law?
CHAPTER 11: JOHN RAWL'S A THEORY OF JUSTICE

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to learn the facts, theories, claims that John Rawls will discuss in Theory of
Justice and how can it be applied in real life situation.

QUOTE

"Social Contract: Free people need to agree on some ground rules in order to live together
in harmony."

REVIEW

The main idea of John Rawls in his theory is to present a conception of justice which
generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of social
contract. In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of
nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. According to Rawls, "justice as
fairness" conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation
that is fair. One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial
situation as rational and mutually disinterested. Justice as fairness is not a complete
contact theory. The contract idea can be extended to the choices of more or less an
entireethical system including principles for all the virtues and not only for justice.

John Rawls theory states that there are two principles of justice, first is equal basic
liberties (each person isto have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with a similar liberty for others )and arrangement of social and economic
inequalities (social and economic inequualities are to be arranged so that they are both
reasonably expected to be everyone's advantage, and attached to positions and offices
open to all).

John Rawls addresses the fact that there will be situations where these principles will be
in conflict with each other. Rather than compromise between them in such cases, he takes
the position that there is a specific priority. First , the priority of equal and basic liberties
(The principles of justice are to be ranked and therefore liberty can be restricted only for
the sake of liberty) and arrangement of social and economic inequalities (The second
principle of justice is prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the
sum of advantages and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle.) The two
principles require that everyone benefit from economic and social inequalities. There are
indefinite ways in which all may be advantaged.
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

John Rawls' principles of justice

Priority rules
Social contract

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. Which of the principle has priority? explain briefly.

2. What is social contract?
3. What is veil of ignorance?
CHAPTER 12: ANNETTE BAIER'S THE NEED FOR MORE THAN JUSTICE

WHAT I EXPECT TO LEARN

I expect to understand justice according to Baier and why more than justice is
needed.

REVIEW

For the past chapters, it was evident that justice is an important thing to consider.
But for this chapter, Annette Baier pointed out that not only justice should be considered
but the different inequalities as well.
For Baier, justice means for the good of all, having equality between gender and
races. Care with justice, for Baier is something that should also be considered and is
important. It is not only caring for a person, but caring for everybody as well.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED

I learned that equality is an important thing to consider. Without equality means

there is no justice.

INTEGRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. Who is Annette Baier?

2. What is equality?
3. What is justice?