Anda di halaman 1dari 17

Beverly Lauw

Intro to Philosophy Final Review

Chapter 11
Natural theology vs. revealed theology, sources of these theologies
• Theology: the study or science or knowledge of God (theos- God)
o Natural Theology: the study or science or knowledge of God through the natural intellect,
unaided by any special or supernatural input.
 Humanity  God
o Revealed Theology: the knowledge of God through special revelation, such as the Bible, the
Church, Moses, Christ, Holy Spirit, etc.
 God Humanity

Reason against natural theology

Some theologians against natural theology
• Luther is an augustinaian monk.

a posteriori arguments for God's existence and a priori arguments for God's existence
A Posteriori Arguments (demonstrates God by means of sense experience)
• Cosmological arguments
• Teleological arguments

A Priori Arguments (demonstrates God independently from sense experience)

• Ontological arguments
• Moral arguments

Cosmological argument, thomistic form and popular form

• All contingent (or caused) being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.
• The cosmos is a contingent being
• Therefore, the cosmos depends for its existence on some uncaused being.

• Definition: A proof for God’s existence: God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent,
physical universe/
• First-cause Argument, contingency
• Thomistic Cosmological argument: Unmoved mover (transcendent: dualism)
• Popular form: uncomfortable with leaving it open- ended as in the Thomistic form. Argument for
Transcendence speaks of a beginning of time for the physical universe, created by the ultimate being.

Teleological argument
- Watches, houses, ships, machines, and so on all exhibit design, and they are planned and produced by
intelligent beings.
- The universe exhibits design_____________________________________________________
- Therefore, the universe was planned and produced by an intelligent being.

• Ultimate cause: rational cause

• “The rationality displayed in the cosmos must be the product of mind.” Pg. 260
• Paley, watch analogy: the human eyeball demands an intelligent creator no less than a watch.
• Definition: a proof for God’s existence: God, an intelligent being, must exist as the cause of the
teleology (design, beauty, unity, harmony, etc.) of the physical universe, design argument.
Ultimate cause
 Rational cause

World views: creationism, evolutionism, theisitic evolution

 Creationism: the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creations of a
supernatural being.
 Evolutionism: the belief that the world has evolved throughout time
 Theistic evolution: the belief that God uses natural evolutionary processes to bring about his desired

Chapter 12

Ontological argument
 A proof for God’s existence: God must exist inasmuch as the attribute of existence (or, in
some forms, necessary existence) is part of his nature.
 God is the greatest or most perfect being.
 A being who exists is greater or more perfect than being who does not exist._________________
 Therefore, God must exist.

Anselm's version
• Ps. 14:1- The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” NASM
• The fool, even though he rejects the existence of God, by mentioning God, he/she is admitting to the
possibility of such a being and therefore exists in their mind.
• God is the most perfect being that can be conceived. There is no greater than God that can be
conceived. If there is no one greater, one cannot say that the greatest being does not exist.

Descartes' Finessing of the issue

• A horse exists both in conception and reality. A horse with wings can be conceived. But the possibility
of conception does not make a horse with wings exist. However, while it is not the essence of horse to
have wings, just as it is in the essence of triangles to have a sum of 180 degrees in angles, it is in the
essence of God to have existence as the most perfect being.

Existence as a predicate
• Critics of ontological argument usually base their attack on the notion that existence is not an essential
• Kant: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. are predicates, but not existence. (this is not an
example of identical judgment, A is A) You cannot accept the reality of a triangle, but reject the sum
of its angles having 180 degrees. However, you can reject the 180 degrees if you reject the reality of

Malcolm's version
• Unlimited being  not bound by time, so no beginning point- either exists or doesn’t exists
Unlimited being existing without limits, so always existing, is consistent (consistency principle)
Such a being is then necessary.
• Focuses on God as a being without limits.

Moral argument
• Absolute moral law exists  Absolute moral law necessitates an absolute mind as its author 
Therefore, an absolute mind exists as the author of objective morality.
• Sense experience vs. Moral experience
• moral laws (dependent on context, values adaptability and application.) vs. Moral law (existence of an
eternal universal principle of morality)
• Definition: God must exist as the only adequate foundation of genuine (objective) morality.

Objective vs. subjective morality

• Moral absolutism (objective)
o A morality that is independent of an individual
• Moral relativism (subjective)
o A morality that is dependent of the individual

Moral absolutism
 The view that moral values are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal

Moral relativism
 The denial of any absolute or objective moral values, and the affirmation of the individual (person
community, culture, etc.) as the source of morality.

Religious experience and its efficacy as an argument for God: nonrational, directness, privacy
• Non rational
o Beyond rational, something that cannot be explained at all by reason.
• Directness
o Positive (+)
• Privacy
Negative (-)

Chapter 13

Nature of evil
 The nature of evil comes from the argument of God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world.

Moral evil
• Volitional/ intentional human acts. Springs from the human will. Think of the nazi death camps,
genocide in Rwanda, tortured prisoners of war.

Natural evil
• Resulting from natural causes. Think of Hurricane Katrina, AIDS, the great San Francisco earthquake,
the sinking of Titanic.

Physical evil
• Mental or physical pain

Metaphysical evil
• Things happening by chance, deformities, imperfections (injustice, genetics, deformities, etc.)

• Attempts to make the existence of evil consistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omniscient,
omnipotent, prefect God.
• Definition: The attempt to reconcile the traditional view of God and the evil of the world.
• As long as Christianity tries to hold on to the platonic being/ becoming dualism, this issue will remain
problematic (see Hume’s statement of the problem on p.310.)
• Problem: how could a perfect God create a world with sin in it?

Historical solution for theodicy

o Hebrew God and Christian God different
o Hebrew God, imperfect, jealous, had weaknesses
o Christianity accepted this perfect view of God to make Christianity palpable to pagan
o The problem of imposing Greek thought onto Bible

Free will defense

• Deity not responsible, humans responsible all by themselves since they have the power to choose evil.
• Deity permits evil as the consequence allowing free will to humanity (sin inevitable with free will),
deity knows what humans will do (foreknowledge.)
• Deity testing to see if humans will use free will for good (reward) or bad (punishment.)
• Definition: An attempted solution to the problem of moral evil: Human beings are endowed with
free will by God as a condition for genuine morality, trust love, and the like, though it also makes
possible the introduction of moral evil into the world.

Theodicists and soul-making:

o Free will of humans: humans led themselves into the temptation of sin, so humans are
responsible not God.
o The problem of sin still existing in the world along with God, still a problem, especially when
there is a great amount of sin.
o Soul-making from bios to zoe
o Purposeful existence of evil.
o Necessary for soul-making
John Hick
o Creation account to be interpreted non-literally, it is an account that is actually taking place
o Earth is a necessary place for soul-making.

J. L. Mackie's argument against free will

• God and evil cannot coexist
• God is all good
• Evil Exists
• A good being gets rid of EVIL as much as possible
• Therefore theism is inconsistent.

Plantiga's defense of free will

• God must have good reasons for permitting EVIL
• Free Will requires the possibility of evil
• Humans could not have been made free and also guaranteed absence EVIL

Free will & foreknowledge

• Reformed vs. Arminian
Process theology
• (ejects pre-destination type of thinking)
o Alfred Whitehead
o Being over becoming

o Richard Rice
o Makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions,
and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's
foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in
light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined.
o So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been
determined but remains open.
o As such, God is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer
and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to God's plan or presuppositions.

Chapter 14
Necessity of morality, reasons:
(Definition: Belief in and conformity to principles of virtuous conduct)

• Is morality necessary?
o Why should people care about morality?
o Psychological reasons:
 Conscience
 Social censure/reputation
o Sociological reason
o Theological reason

(The psychological egoist claims that all actions are inevitably motivated by self-interest. Regardless of
appearances to the contrary, we are all selfish. It shows, first, that this is a psychological theory, a claim about
human nature rather than a theory of morality. Psychological egoism makes a claim about what we can (and cannot)
do, not what we should (and should not) do. As a result, it is really another form of determinism claiming that the
selfishness of human behavior is determined.)
Social censure/reputation

Ethical relativism/subjectivism
(The denial of any absolute or objective moral values, and the affirmation of the individual (Person, community,
cluture, etc.) as the source of morality.

• No universal objective moral values

• Moral standards are left to the individual person, community, society, etc….)

Cultural relativism

• Each of the many differing cultures has its own manner of thinking, feeling, and behaving as passed on
from previous generations as well-documented by cultural anthropologists.

(The view that morality and other values are rooted in the experience, habits, and preferences of a culture.)
Descriptive ethical relativism: The variations in customs in differing cultures are due to the sense of morality.
What is moral in one country is immoral in another)
Examples of descriptive ethical relativism:

• Which of the following are morally acceptable?

• Killing newborn females
• Family killing a female family member when she gets raped
• Eating a BigMac
• Female genital mutilation
• Drinking alcohol and gambling
• Women wearing shorts
• Female secretary at school

Normative ethical relativism:

• There are no absolute, universal moral standards(not even that of tolerance) and one is in no position to judge
or criticize other individuals or societies for falling behind in morality
• Absolutism in contrast says, moral truths exist and we do and should judge others and societies using reason
sprinkled with sympathy and understanding.
• Each culture makes its own moral standards. Applying one principle from one culture to another is an
exhibition of power by those who hold political leadership

Problems of normative cultural relativism:

• Since tolerance is not accepted as a moral standard in normative cultural relativism, the self-assertion of cultural
relativism is inconsistent. A culture where superiority and intolerance is taught has made those things a norm in
their culture and therefore right for the culture. There is no acceptance of people in that context
• Going by each culture, the norm is the one that is upheld by the majority in that culture. Therefore, there are no
principles or standards that can lead to moral reform.
• If being raised a certain way is an issue, this should apply to small minority groups within societies. People
with different upbringing need to make their own moral choices. This leads to that each person has the right to
choose his/her own moral standards, leading to complete individual subjectivity.
• Followers of normative ethical relativism do pass judgments on practices such as genital mutilation, female
infanticide and so forth. This is an inconsistency in their methodology
• Although variation exist, that doesn’t mean that there are no points of convergence in morality (e.g. killing is

Psychological egoism
The theory of human nature asserting that all actions are motivated exclusively by self-interest.
As is evident from the word itself, humanism is the exaltation of humanity as the source and criterion of all value
and meaning.
The philosophy that emphasizes the existing individual as opposed to abstractions or principles, as the point of
departure for authentic philosophizing. Two existentialist slogans from Sartre: 1. Existence precedes essence. 2.
Subjectivity must be the starting point.
Chapter 15
Deontological vs. teleological ethics
- Deontological Ethics: is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of
an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules. (looks at
rules and duties)
- Teleological Ethics: is an approach to ethics is he study of goals, ends,
and purposes.

- Deontologicai: Emphasis on the performance of duty, rather than results,
as the sign of right actions
- Teleologcail: Emphasis on the results of actions as the test of their

Utilitarianism (difference from hedonism and psychological egoism)

- teleological ethic, emphasizing the consequences of actions as the
criteria of their moral worth.
- is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its
usefulness in maximizing utility as summed among all sentient beings. It is
thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is
determined by its outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are
considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

- Utilitarianism has always gone hand in hand with hedonism, which certainly
does specify that nature of good. Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure is
the highest good and that production of pleasure is the criterion of right

o Thus the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest

balance of pleasure over pain.

o Utilitarianism as social hedonism, the theory that we should promote

the good of society or the pleasure of all people. Thus utilitarianism is
not motivated out of self-interest but out of an interest for the greatest
possible number of persons and aims at their satisfaction.

- Psychological egoism: Ultilitariansim holds that one ought to consider everyone and
produce the greatest balance of good over evil; while egoism, by contrast, says that each
person ought to maximize their own good.

Principle of utility
The principle of utility is where the heart of utilitarianism lies. The word
“utility” simple means “usefulness” but the utilitarians employ it to mean that which
promoted the greatest balance of good over evil, thus utilitarianism is the doctine
that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of good over evil.

Benevolence principle
When utilitarianism is not motivated out of self-interest but out of an interest
for the greatest possible number of persons and aims at their satisfaction.
Utilitarianism relies on the Benevolence Principle: Happiness is to be distributed as
widely and as equally as possible among all people. Thus utilitarianism is, finally,
the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the

social hedonism
Utilitarianism as social hedonism, the theory that we should promote the good of
society or the pleasure of all people. Thus utilitarianism is not motivated out of self-
interest but out of an interest for the greatest possible number of persons and aims at
their satisfaction.

the hedonic calculus

The idea of calculating pleasures and pains was formulated most explicitly in
Bentham’s idea of a hedonic calculus. According to Bentham, in attempting to
calculate a pleasure, we must, as it were, measure or weigh it in seven ways,
taking into account its
1. Intensity, or how strong it is.
2. Duration, how long it will last.
3. Certainty, how likely it is to occur.
4. Propinquity, how near at hand it is.
5. Fecundity, its ability to produce still further pleasures.
6. Purity, its freedom from ensuing pains.
7. Extent, the number of people affected by it.

Utilitarian decision-making process

They base everything on pleasure, so by seeking what is the best for the
society and the best way to have everyone to have pleasure is their thinking

Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism

- Act utilitarianism: when faces with a choice, we must first consider the
likely consequences of potential actions and form that, choose to do what
we believe will generate the most pleasure.
- Rule Utilitarian, begins by looking at potential rules of action. It has been
criticized for advocating general rules that, in some specific
circumstances, clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill
another malevolent aggressors very difficult.

Objections to utilitarianism
There is more to life than pleasure; knowledge, virtue and other things are
important too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine.
- Utilitarianism is impractical
- We can’t predict the consequences of an Action
- Utilitarianism is too demanding
- Utilitarianism ignores distributive justice
- Sometimes the end doesn’t justify the means

Chapter 16
conditional vs. unconditional ought

: Kant defines this as, the conditional, you ought to do something because if

you want something to happen, and the unconditional, you ought to do

something PERIOD. Meaning unconditional ought is a sense of duty. We

should act through our sense of duty, not for sake of consequences.

Kant's rejection of teleological ethics

- Kant rejected any teleological conception of moral action. He rejected all of
teleological ethics, which means that the end justifies the means. He rejected that
certain ethics can not be justified if the end is worth all of the horrible things done
to get there.

Kant's rejection of naturalistic ethics

- Any naturalistic basis of moral action. By rejecting conditioned morality,
Kant expresses his rejection of any and all naturalistic ethics. This rejects any
and all ethics based on human nature, history, psychology, or appeals to the
physical world. He says that morality should be separate from all empirical
considerations. It should be derived a priori from pure reason.

Categorical imperative
Is the fundament principle of morality. More accurately, it is criterion or test
by which we can make sure our actions are moral – that is, that they are motivated
by a good will or performed out of duty. “Act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant (the
most famous and important concepts in history of ethics: the Categorical

Principle of Univeralizability
A principle that an act is good if everyone should, in similar circumstances, do the
same act with exception.
- The Kantian principle that if a course of action cannot be universally
adopted it must be morally impermissible.
- A complex and controversial notion which has been used both to
distinguish the moral from the non-moral and to distinguish the moral
from the immoral – two jobs which tend to get in each other’s way

Categorical imperative and the Golden Rule

- Is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel
Kant, as well as modern deontological ethics.
- Two version
o 1: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same
time will that is should become a universal law.
o 2. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

Problems of Kantian Duty

First objection might, rather naturally, focus on the moral law itself. Kant
assumes throughout that there is a moral law, a sort of moral rhyme and reason to
things, a :moral law within” that is just as given as the starry heavens above, and
that we can be in harmony with it by obeying the hands and exclaim, “There is no
undergirding and overarching morality – it’s all up for grabs!”
* One of the most common is that it is characterized by a certain
abstractness or remoteness. To be sure it, may be difficult to bring to bear a rather
life-less and formal principle like the Categorical Imperative on the concrete and
often vivid moral dilemmas we are frequently confronted by. On the hand, that is
just Kant’s concern. Do we too easily and quickly decide these issues by obvious
and immediate considerations that actually blind us to the real and rational basis or
moral action?

Chapter 17

Virtue theory

• Actor, not action

• It focuses more on the individual, and their characteristics, as opposed to just looking at an action that has
been carried out.

(Traits of character that are manifest in action)

• Inform concerning the whole person, not just individual actions

• Instead of asking of the ac is good or bad

Focus of virtue theory

Aristotle's virtue theory

• Telos of being human:

o Eudaimonia
o Well-being
o Humaniy’s telos is achieved only when we act according to reason
o Usage of reason: virtue
 Intellectual virtue ( using reason to learn)
 Moral virtue (developed through habit but inherently present in the first place)
o Virtues are means
 Keeps us centered from the extremes of excess and deficiency, which are vices

Telos of being human

When we act according to reason
Eudaimonia (the best/literal translation)
Happiness or well being.
It is the highest good because it is complete and self-sufficient; we seek it for its own sake, not as a means to some
other end.
Study the list of virtues on p.426
Objections to virtue theory (both textbook and notes)

o Lack of focus on the moral value of specific acts

o The moderation view of virtue shifts its focus from defining and describing the virtue itself.
o First, they claim that the virtue approach does not help in resolving moral dilemmas or mediating
between conflicting values.
o Second, critics charge that virtue ethics is an incomplete theory.
Natural Law Theory

• Acts are moral when they conform to and support natural laws
• Natural laws are discernible through human reason and therefore, it is human duty to use reason to act in
conformity to natural laws
• Survival and procreation are inherent part of being human, so acts that conform to these purposes are
morally good and those that work against these purposes are morally wrong.
• With this theory, there is a right to life and health that makes that life possible. Therefore anything that
harms human life or human health is morally wrong.

How natural laws are discerned

• Human reason is what allows us to discover natural laws and helps us to discern the right course of

The inherent part of being human

• Survival and procreation are inherent part of being human, so acts that conform to these purposes are
morally good and those that work against these purposes are morally wrong.

Focus of natural law theory

• It is the foundation of our social, political, and ethical structures and institutions.
• To act in conformity with virtue is nothing but acting, living, and preserving our being as reason directs.

Two kinds of natural law theories

o Theistic Natural Law

 There is a divine being that created all of creation as well as laws concerning them and therefore,
it is our duty to live in conformity to those laws.
o Atheistic Natural Law
 Reasoning possessed by humanity allows us to discern the natural laws

Problems of natural law theory

• Does possessing reasoning automatically mean knowledge of Morality?

• Does inherent nature equal good moral value?
• The conflict of theistic vs. atheistic natural law theory.

Thomas Aquinas' four kinds of law

• Eternal law: God’s unalterable rule over all things.

• Natural law: Universal rules of conduct known from human nature.

• Human law: Statutes and legislation contrived by humans.

• Divine law: Specially revealed will of God for humanity’s supernatural
or religious end.

Chapter 18
Liberalism comes from the Latin “libertas means liberty or freedom”. It insists on the
freedom of the individual: both freedom from undue external and governmental controls,
and the freedom to pursue individual interests.

latin base for the word liberalism

Libertas means liberty or freedom

liberation from what?

During this time was when the government was being a tyrant so John Locke
proposed this theory and stated that they should get liberation from the government’s
tyrannical rule.

what is liberalism reacting against?

Liberalism reacting against tyranny and the government’s absolute rule over the
people and the abuse of power that was heavy during this time.

Influence of utilitarianism on liberalism

The influences of utilitarianism on liberalism is that utilitarianism prompted
legislative and administrative reform that John Locke wanted to have other than tyrants.
The central concept of utilitarianism was that that public policy should seeks to provide “the
greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification
for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with
the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.

Distributive justice (from notes)

A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings he or she possess under
the distribution.
- Concerns what some consider to be socially just with respect to the allocation of
goods in a society. Thus, a community in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not
arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice.

Original stances/beliefs of liberalism and conservatism and how they differ from
the current stances
Original stances/beliefs of liberalism and conservatism was that liberalism is the
ideology of freedom, and conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the
maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual
change in society.

Chapter 19

Rousseau’s democracy
His view on freedom was that he took freedom as his starting point of democracy.
But when a person joins society, he or she is giving up his or her freedom in order to
live within that given community. These freedoms are voluntarily given up to the
legitimate government powers. He said that these laws, or restrictions on the
community are allowed because this will allow the community to live together.

This idea is the basis of democracy. Democracy cannot exist if there was not
consent or an agreement of the people. And from this idea of consent from the
people is where democracy gets its power. That the majority of the people got what
they wanted.

social contract
The Social Contract is the contract that is agreed upon when one lives in a society.
This contract is stating that the people who live in society are bound to the law and
if they break it then there will be a punishment, but this restriction is rewarded with
freedom and communion. And rational people will likely chose to be part of a
society that is restricted but protected, rather than complete freedom living in fear
and discomfort.

general will
This is the concept that people consent to and which provides the “supreme
direction” of the governing social life. This can be explained that as a person has his
or her personal goals, so does the community. The majority of the community will
govern which way society is going to go. The majority of the community may or
may not have the same interest as the certain individual, but no matter what, the
majority of the people decide which way the community will run and go. (“The good
of the people”)

problem of consent
The problem of consent is “How can consent be the basis of democratic government
when most citizens do not explicitly give their consent?” (p. 470) Ideas?

tyranny of the majority

The “tyranny of the majority” is the concern talking about that if there is no check
to control the majority of the population, and then there is no chance to see the
wishes of the minority. (Ex: Slavery) The majority will rule the community, while the
wishes of the minority will not be looked upon or considered.

Plato’s degenerate forms of government (rejected all of these)

- Timocracy:
The rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambitious and honor.

- Plutocracy:

The rule by the rich. Also called oligarchy.

- Democracy:

The rule by the people.

- Dictatorship:

The absolute rule of a single individual. Also called tyranny and

Aristocracy: ACCEPTED THIS
This is the rule by the best of the society, meaning ruled by the people who are
enlightened with regard to reality, truth, and goodness. That these are the only
types of people that are suit fit to rule society in a far manner.
Plato: why philosophers must be kings:
Philosophers must be kings because they have “emerged from the darkness of the
Cave and have beheld the Good”. They have been enlightened and have wisdom
that will be beneficial to society.
Aristotle’s democracy:
Aristotle’s democracy shared the same fear of Plato about mob rule, but he fought
for a more democratic government that would be able to represent the will of the
citizens better.

Chapter 20
Three most important views: Rawls, MacIntyre, and Okin
Rawls: Rawls’ two principles of justice:
- The Principle of Equal Basic Liberty for All:

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty

compatible with a similar liberty for others.” This attempts to
accommodate the libertarian ideal of individual freedom and rights, and is
directed to that part of the social structure that establishes such liberties.

- The Difference Principle:

“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and b) attach to
the positions and offices open to all.”

Rawls’ General Conception of Justice:

“All of social values- liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of
self-respect- are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or
all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage.”
MacIntyre: MacIntyre’s emphasis on desert:
“How deserving a person is”. This is the crucial component of justice, and the one
that is missing in both Rawlsian and Nozickian theories. “The notion of desert is at
home only in the context of a community whose primary bond is a shared
understanding both of the good for man and of the good of that community and
where individuals identify their primary interests with the reference to those
goods.” The idea of desert- people getting what they desert.
Feinberg’s questions for MacIntyre
“Should a person be rewarded for what he or she is rather than does?”
“Is it practical to try to “police” moral defects in persons”
“Is it appropriate to reward virtuous activity with economic prizes?”
“Would such rewards provide an inappropriate incentive for virtuous activity, which,
by its nature, should be otherwise motivated?”
Okin: Okin’s critique of traditional theories of justice:
Okin’s critique of traditional theories of justice is attacked in the realms of human
life, most notable the family. Justice have been seen in the courtroom or in the
judicial system, not in the dynamics of a household.
Justice in the family:
The justice in the family is talking about the Okin’s unique feminists take upon
justice. How justice should not only apply to the courtroom, but also be applied the
household. This can begin by the cultivating an increased awareness of the effects
of gender in the society.
Gender in this chapter is talking about the politically charged term used by the
feminists to represent the inequality in our society and its treatment of women.
Okin defines gender as “the deeply entrenched institutionalization of sexual

What kind of historical philosophical influence did Rawls and Nozick have?

Rawls and Nozick philosophical influences on the theories that they developed.
Nozick’s three principles of justice in holdings:
- The Principle of Justice in Acquisition:

The coming to be owned or the appropriation by someone of some

previously disowned or inappropriate something’s. If such a something is
appropriated when there is enough of that something left over for
everyone else, then that acquisition is legitimate.

- The Principle of Justice in Transfer:

This principle is talking about the process by which a holding is acquired

from someone who previously held it. When something is held by an act of
legitimate transfer from someone who acquired it by a just, original
acquisition, thus making it legitimate.

- The Principle of the Rectification of Injustice in Holdings:

This principle is talking about not all holdings have been acquired either
by a just act of original acquisition or by a just act of transfer: Just think of
holdings that have been acquired through fraud, intimidation, theft, and

Nozick’s complete principle of distributive justice:

A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the

How do the views of MacIntyre and Okin criticize this more traditional view
of Rawls (and Nozick, but Nozick's view is not going to be tested on).
The views of MacIntyre and Oktin criticize this more traditional view
of Rawls because the traditional view of Rawls was more traditional and
the Nozick’s view was more modern in the aspects of how the government
should treat the citizens, etc.