Bulisik

Chapter: 8- Aristotle: Happiness And Virtue

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “All Human Beings Seek Happiness.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be all about the relationship of happiness and virtue.

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about studying of how a person defines happiness and virtue. For Aristotle, happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Happiness is related to virtue by means that virtue is something that he/she likes to do like vices; it makes him/her happy. Lastly, happiness is related to pleasure because pleasure surely makes a person happy because it is something that a person always wants. Aristotle also explains that virtue is something that a product of training and habits, it is also the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that not all happiness is about pleasure, honor or wealth but also with vices of excess and deficiency.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the happiness?

2. What is virtue?

3. What is moral virtue?

4. What is intellectual virtue?

5. What is the meaning of the vices of excess and deficiency?

Review Questions:

1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related pleasure?

Happiness according to Aristotle is that happiness is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world. For me, that means that happiness is doing anything that makes a person feel comfortable and contented. Happiness is related to virtue by means that virtue is something that he/she likes to do like vices; it makes him/her happy. Lastly, happiness is related to pleasure because pleasure surely makes a person happy because it is something that a person always wants.

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples.

Moral Virtue according to Aristotle comes from training and habit and generally is a state of character that is a mean between vices of excess and deficiency. For example, Aristotle portrays the virtue of courage as a mean between the extremes of rashness (an excess) and cowardice (a deficiency).

3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?

Yes, according to Aristotle all human beings seek happiness thats why everyone is possible to be happy.

Discussion Questions:

1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure a suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure?

2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do you agree or not?

Advertisements
Tags: , ,

Chapter: 7- Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be all about self-love.

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about studying of what a person can do for self-love. In this chapter, Kant described that the good will is that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone – that is, good in itself. He also described what is hypothetical and categorical imperatives. According to Kant, when he conceives Hypothetical Imperatives in general, he does not know beforehand what it will contain – until its condition is given. But if he conceives Categorical Imperatives, he knows at once what it contains. He also explains that the categorical imperative can be used to justify immoral actions.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that to much self-love could cause immorality.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is good will?

2. What are hypothetical imperatives?

3. What are categorical imperatives?

4. What do motive of duty has no moral worth means?

5. Is taking ones life immoral?

Review Questions:

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

Kant’s account of the good will is that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone – that is, good in itself.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

According to Kant, when he conceives Hypothetical Imperatives in general, he does not know beforehand what it will contain – until its condition is given. But if he conceives Categorical Imperatives, he knows at once what it contains.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universe law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

The only further question to ask is whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. It is then seen at once that a system of nature by whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the furtherance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature.

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and ends). And explain it.

According to Kant, this principle of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps quite compatible with his own entire future welfare; only there remains the question “Is it right?”

Discussion Questions:

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

The two versions of the categorical imperative are just different expressions of one basic rule because are the same because both of them talks about self-love in the negative side.

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.

No, because some undone duties can cause good for others.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

Yes, because in taking your own life is obviously an example of an immoral action.

Tags: , ,

Chapter:6 – James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “Right actions are those that have the best consequences.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be are those nonhuman beings considered to be given moral consideration?

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about studying happiness and its consequences. This chapter also describes what the problem with hedonism. According to Rachels, the problem about Hedonism is it gets thing the wrong way around. Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. 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.

It also distinguish what is rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism, the new version of the theory which rules are established by reference to the principle and individual’s acts will then be judged right and wrong by reference to the rules. Act-Utilitarianism is the original theory.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that not all happiness is truly happiness till the end. Some greatest happiness has more consequences than happiness.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the utilitarian doctrine?

2. What is hedonism?

3. What is rule-utilitarianism?

4. What is act-utilitarian?

5. Who are the utilitarians?

Review Questions:

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?

Classical Utilitarianism is classified as:

a. First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their consequences.

b. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused.

c. Third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness as to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?

According to Rachels, the problem about Hedonism is it gets thing the wrong way around. Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. 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.

Utilitarianism sought a way to formulate their view without assuming hedonistic account of good an evil. G.E. Moore, an English philosopher, suggested that there are three obvious intrinsic goods; Pleasures, Friendships And aesthetics enjoyment – and that is right actions are those that increase the world’s supply of such things.

3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?

The objection about justice is that in the case about justice, he should bear false witness against the innocent person.

The objection about rights is what about the morality of the officer’s behaviors?

The objection about promises is why utilitarianism is vulnerable to this sort of criticism?

4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?

Rule-utilitarianism, the new version of the theory which rules are established by reference to the principle and individual’s acts will then be judged right and wrong by reference to the rules. Act-Utilitarianism is the original theory.

5. What is the third line of defense?

The third line of defense is a small group of contemporary utilitarian’s has had a very different response to the utilitarian arguments. That argument points out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on; to this there response is essentially, “So what?”.

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.

For me, it is not acceptable because I would not reject my common moral beliefs just because there is a conflict with utilitarianism because it is what I know even before.

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?

Utilitarian’s focuses on human beings but because nonhuman beings also can cause unhappiness with humans, then they also consider nonhuman beings.

3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

Tags: , ,

Chapter: 5- John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “By happiness are intended pleasures and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be whose happiness should be considered? What is the higher and lower pleasure?

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about studying happiness and pleasure. This describes whether whom should be happy, oneself or the majority.

This chapter also describes the meaning of the principle of utility. The Principle of Utility or the greatest happiness principle state that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness are intended pleasures and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures. It also describes the what are higher and lower pleasure and its difference. The higher pleasure is the one that all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feelings of moral obligation to prefer it. While the lower pleasure is when those who are competently acquainted with both, place so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasures which their nature is capable of.

This chapter also describes whose happiness should be considered. For me, in what I understand about the case, those who are in greater in number or the majority should be considered in happiness.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that true happiness is cannot be seen by the happiness of one person but in the happiness of the majority.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is principle of utility?

2. What is a doctrine worthy only of swine?

3. Give examples of higher pleasures.

4. Give examples of lower pleasures.

5. Whose happiness should be considered?

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.

The Principle of Utility or the greatest happiness principle state that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness are intended pleasures and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures.

The Principle of Utility could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong by for example lying could be a cause for a person to be unhappy. His conscience could kill him. He would always be thinking about his lies.

2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?

Mill said that the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine is disregarding precisely because the beast’s pleasure does not satisfy human beings conceptions of happiness.

3. How odes Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

The higher pleasure is the one that all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feelings of moral obligation to prefer it. While the lower pleasure is when those who are competently acquainted with both, place so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasures which their nature is capable of.

4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

For me, in what I understand about the case, those who are in greater in number or the majority should be considered in happiness.

5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.

According to the utilitarian conception, there was no original desire of it, or motive to it, save its conduciveness to pleasure, and especially to protection from pain. But through the association thus formed, it may be felt a good in itself, and desired as such with a great intensity as any other good; and with this difference between it and the love of money, of power, or of fame, that all of these may, and often do, render the individual noxious to the other members of the society to which he belongs, whereas there is nothing which makes him so much a blessing to them as the cultivation of the disinterested love of virtue.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?

I disagree because happiness is different from pleasure. Happiness can stand alone even without pleasure. You can smile even without pleasure.

2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones?

Yes because in higher pleasures, you should be ready for anything or you should be superior in anything.

3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete sprit of the ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?

I agree because you should do something for the majority and not for yourself alone. Make a move that ensures that the majority will be happy as you are.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. 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?

Tags: , ,

Chapter: 4- Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “Most cultures are formed out of many influences.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be what is moral isolationism? Do separated and unmixed cultures is unreal?

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about studying cultures, what is moral isolationism. Well, Moral Isolationism is the view of anthropologists and other that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. According to Midgley, moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Essentially, this is the programme of immoralism and it carries a distressing logical difficulty.

This chapter also talks about what could be the basis in criticizing other cultures. Midgley thinks that the culture of our own is the basis of criticizing other cultures. This means that why do we judge other cultures if we could judge our own culture.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that cultures are truly mixed and the thought that cultures are separated and unmixed is truly unreal.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is moral isolationism?

2. What Tsujigiri means?

3. What is crossroads-cut?

4. What is the basis in criticizing other cultures?

5. Are cultures separated and unmixed?

Review Questions:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

Moral Isolationism is the view of anthropologists and other that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand.

2. Explain the Japanese customer of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?

Tsujigiri literally means as crossroads-cut. Tsujigiri is a verb on classical Japanese which means “to try out ones new sword on a chance wayfarer”. A Samurai sword had to be tried out because, if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Otherwise, the warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honour, offend his ancestors, and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed, and wayfarers had to be expended. Any wayfarers would do – provided, of course, that he was not another Samurai. Scientist recognizes a familiar problem about the rights of experimental subjects.

3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?

According to Midgley, moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Essentially, this is the programme of immoralism and it carries a distressing logical difficulty.

4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?

Midgley thinks that the culture of our own is the basis of criticizing other cultures. This means that why do we judge other cultures if we could judge our own culture.

Discussion Questions:

1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?

I don’t know because Nietzsche also describes something that is not immoral. He just describes what he thinks about a good and healthy society.

2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer.

I agree because it is really obvious in our life today. Many cultures are mixed. Many people travel from their country to other countries. In that way, it describes that there is already a mixed culture.

Tags: , ,

Chapter: 3- Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “A healthy society allows superior individuals to exercise their will to power, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.”

What I expect to learn:

The learning expectation for this chapter review would be what is master-morality and slave-morality.

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about teaching and describing what is a good and healthy society is. A good and healthy society in describing that a healthy society allows superior individuals to exercise their “will to power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

In this chapter, I also learned what is master-morality and slave-morality. Master Morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom, while Slave-Morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love.

What I’ve learned:

What have I learned is that power has always come on top. The weak are the ones who became slaves and the powerful became the masters.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is will to power?

2. What is master-morality?

3. What is slave-morality?

4. Who experience master-morality and slave morality?

5. What is creator of values?

Review Questions:

1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

Nietzsche characterizes a good and healthy society in describing that a healthy society allows superior individuals to exercise their “will to power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?

Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation is that every individual has actual similarity of the amount of force and degree of worth and their co-relation within one organization.

3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.

Master Morality emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom, while Slave-Morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

Will to Power means to gain ground, acquire ascendancy- not owing to any morality of immorality and to grow.

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?

These charges are justified because, as I read this case, it is all about power or being superior just like what master-morality means and Nazism is about power. It is all about master and slave.

2. What does it mean to be “a creator of value”?

A creator of value is someone who wants to do anything that he/she doesn’t need any approval, someone that determines values.

Tags: , ,

Chapter: 2- John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Author: James E. White

Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234122156&sr=1-1

Quote: “Morality is Social.”

What I expect to learn:

I’m expecting to learn the difference and the connection between religion and morality.

Chapter Review:

For me, this chapter is all about knowing the relationship between religion and morality. Are the two different with each other or whether the two has some connections with each other?

According to Arthur, morality and religion is different for the reason that morality involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior, typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligations. On the other hand, religion, typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts.

Morality and Religion are connected for the reason that without religious motivation people could not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong.

What I’ve learned:

I’ve learned that religion could truly affect morality. That religion can change immorality.

Integrative Questions:

1. How are morality and religion different?

2. What is moral motivation?

3. What is moral knowledge?

4. Who are the divine command theory?

5. How are morality and religion connected?

Review Questions:

1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?

According to Arthur, morality and religion is different for the reason that morality involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior, typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligations. On the other hand, religion, typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts.

2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?

Religion isn’t necessary for moral motivation because most of us, in fact, just worry about getting caught, being blamed and being looked down on by others. We also may do what is right just because it’s right, or because we don’t want to hurt others or embarrass family and friends.

3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?

Religion isn’t necessary for moral knowledge for the reason that consider how much we would need to know about religion and revelation in order for religion to provide moral guidance. Besides being aware that there is a God, we’d also have to think about which of the many religions is true.

4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?

The Divine Command Theory means that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature has to statutes it enacts: without God’s commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statutes.

Arthur rejects this theory because of what the divine theory implies. Suppose we were to grant that the divine command theory is correct, so that actions are right just because they are commanded by God. The same, of course, can be said about those deeds that we believe are wrong. If God hadn’t commanded us not to do them, they would not be wrong.

5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

Morality and Religion are connected for the reason that without religious motivation people could not be expected to do the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong.

6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?

According to Arthur, this means that if Dewey is correct, then it seems clear there is an important sense in which morality not only can be taught but must be. Besides early moral training, moral thinking depends on our ability to imagine others’ reactions and to imaginatively put ourselves into their shoes.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
2. If morality is social, as Dewy says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?

Tags: , ,