Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “Women perceive and construe social reality differently from men, and that these differences center around experiences of attachment and separation”

What I Expect to learn: I expect to learn what ethics of care is and why justice alone, is not enough.

Review:

As a saying in a quote, “Behind every man’s success, is a woman”, and women has been deprived of rights from the past and is perceived to be powerless up to now.  According to Baier, justice alone is not enough, because first, it has a cold approach, wherein it doesn’t consider emotions and relationships with other people. Women are also not part of the justice, wherein they perceive justice as being rational. Rational as being using the mind or intellectual rather than the emotions, since the women are weak and emotional, they are not considered being part of the justice. Women are deprived of many things before, such as voting and having an education, women are expected to be at home and take care of the family. There will be justice if both man and woman are equal, but what happens when man overpower woman, cannot be justified easily. The view of Baier here as well as Giligan is both feminist, since they are women and they fully understand their rights and what is deprived of them. Baier states that the best moral theory has to be cooperative product of men and women to harmonize with justice and care. Women are far stronger than the man, since they can handle responsibilities and can easily understand what other feels. Men are rational, whereas women are emotional and understand empathy, from their they can learn from each other and balance their rights and justice can be equally treated. I believe that what that justice alone is not enough, because whenever you weigh whether it is right or wrong you must put emotions and feelings into consideration.

What I learned:

• Ethics of Care
• Implications of insufficiency of justice
• How justice is applied to women

Integrative Questions:

1. What is ethics of care?
2. How are women treated on the past?
3. Why it is said that justice alone is not sufficient?
4. How do rationalist view women?
5. How are the rights of women from before and now practiced?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract”

What I Expect to learn: I expect to learn what justice is and how it is related to government and rights.

Review:

Every person has rights and it is expected of them to practice their rights. But sometimes there is an inequality in their rights, and that’s where justice comes in.  Justice is created to protect the rights of the people, to measure whether their rights are practiced, and if it there is fairness in it. But according to Rawls, that inequality doesn’t mean that the person having greater and another person gets lesser. What it wants to convey to people is that it can be considered just, as long as it will be for the benefit of everybody. Another thing is that a feature of justice is to not to take the interest of another person’s interest, which means that everyone should respect each other’s right. Justice and rights are related in the sense, that the right is the privilege or freedom given to a person, whereas justice is something which can measure if that right is equally or unequally given to a person. Also, justice and law are related, wherein law is something where people should abide and something that protects their rights, while justice measures if the rights are practiced. Another point is that ethics is also related to right, justice and law, for ethics is the one who dictates if it is right or wrong. Each of them is interdependent of each other, and if one of them is missing there can be chaos. Law makers and government officials are there to ensure that the justice is enforced properly and fairly for the benefit of one another.

What I learned:

• Justice as fairness
• Relationship of justice, right and law
• Types of justice
• How justice can be fair

Integrative Questions:

1. What is justice?
2. When can you say that justice is fair or unfair?
3. How is justice related to right?
4. How is justice related to law?
5. Why is justice important?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “Conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires.”

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn how rights and law related and when it is right to break the law.

Review:

Just as the Americans say, “We are a free country”, for they are exercise their right to do everything that they want and people won’t interfere with them. In Japan, no matter what you wear and what you do, people wouldn’t mind you. People are created in a world where they have the right to do everything that they want, but that doesn’t mean that all that they want to do, is the right thing to do.  From there, I believe that law was created, it is not done to limit the liberty or rights of the people, but it is created so that people can know whether what they are doing is right or wrong. When can we say if the right can be interfered? Well, it can be interfered if it will be for the benefit of many people. As it is said in the article, when talking about human rights, particularly the freedom of speech, people can automatically say that they have the freedom and you should not interfere, so when will you interfere? Again, you will come back to what Dworking says, that government can interfere if it is for the good of everybody, and since nobody is hurt, it can be justified. Every person has the right to be happy, but if he is happy stealing, then it is a different story, if that person will be put to prison, because it is for the benefit of the majority, then it is justified. I believe that laws and law makers, are created, to support this; that all people have rights, but there is a certain extent up to what they can do it, wherein they don’t hurt other people and limits other people from their rights as well. These people are the ones who maintains the rights of the people and without them, the rights of the people are not protected.

What I learned:

• Law and rights
• When a right can be interfered
• Role of lawmakers, law and other agents in maintaining the morality of rights of people

Integrative Questions:

1. What is the relationship of law to rights?
2. What is the limitation in exercising the rights of people?
3. When can you say that a right must be interfered?
4. How do Dworkin define rights?
5. Why is right important?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “Indeed 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.”

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn why rights is necessary to become moral.

Review:

Every person has different rights and they use it to fight unjust or unfair acts, but what will happen if those rights are taken away from you? Let us talk about Nowhereville, a place wherein you can put every philosophical principle, but they have no rights. They have duty, but they don’t know what rights is all about. Duty is it merely owing something or their due to someone, but it is in correlation with right. But what if there is no right? Can the person claim that someone owes him something? What is right in the first place? Right is something that is claimed or recognizing something. Going back to the last question, can the person claim that someone owes him when there is no right? My answer is that, since there is no right, there is nothing that binds him with the agreement, even when the debtor thinks that he owes the creditor something. Right comes in when he claims that someone owes him, because it is his right, and therefore it is the duty of the person to return what he gets. From there the duty is an action and right is the privilege given in a person which is bounded to duty. If there is no right, there is nothing that will guide the person for the claim that he has. Right is something that gives power to the people to fight for unjust and unfair treatment to people. It gives people the responsibility to do their obligation to other people.

What I learned:

• Value of rights
• Why rights is important
• How is rights related to morality

Integrative Questions:

1. What is rights?
2. Why is it important to people?
3. How is it related to morality?
4. Why is rights necessary to morality?
5. What is the difference of rights from duty?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “But to feel them(Fear and confidence, appetite and anger, pity and in general pleasure and pain) at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people with the right motive and in the right way is what both intermediate and best and this is characteristic of virtue.”

What I Expect to learn: I expect to learn about the Happiness and Virtue and how can virtue affect the happiness of man.

Review:

What is happiness? A child will be happy if you give him a box of chocolates. It is true that the child will become happy, but if you dig deeper, is that what happiness all about? According to the point of view of Aristotle, happiness is a virtuous activity of the soul and should be in accordance with virtue. What does that mean? Many people have activities that leads to an end, a doctor have activities which can take care of your health; an architect can build you houses. From those activities, there is what you call an activity and a good activity. When it comes to arts, there is what you call a painter and a good painter. A painter creates many paintings, but a good painter, creates many paintings and at the same time, a very good one. Virtue there is doing things better than it is. Since happiness is in accordance with virtue, we must also consider the two types of virtue. The first one is intellectual virtue, wherein it is trained and is inborn, it is natural and no matter how you change it, it is difficult to change. On the other hand moral virtue is habitual and it does not arise from nature, and as time comes it may change. Upon knowing the two types of virtues we go now on the nature of virtue. There is what you call mean or intermediate, the excess and the defect. Mean is the middle part of the extremes, while excess and defect are both the extremes.  The mean is the right virtue which can bring you to success, while excess and defect is the one can bring you down.  Anything which is bad from the start, example is gambling, cannot be considered as mean, excess or defect, because from the start it is already bad. An example I can think of this is eating. Eating is needed for a person to regain energy and to survive, but if you eat too much that is required to your body, you can become obese and get many diseases from that such as heart attack, and if you eat lesser than your body need, you will get weak and instead become anorexic. So it just implies that in order to live a better life and do better things and be happy, one must be virtuous and you can achieve that by staying on the mean, although it is very hard, but in the end, it will make you happy.

What I learned:

• Happiness is achieved by being virtuous
• Nature of Virtue: Excess, Deficiency and Mean
• 2 Kinds of Virtue: Intellectual and Moral

Integrative Questions:

1. What is virtue?
2. How can you relate happiness with virtue?
3. Why is virtue necessary to become happy?
4. What is the nature of virtue?
5. How can you say when something is excess/deficient or intermediate?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “Now I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will: he must in all actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, always be viewed at the same time as an end.”

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn about Categorical Imperative and Good will.

Review:

“The end justifies the means”, is said by Machiavelli, wherein it means that no matter where it came from, as long as the result or the end is good, it can be justified as good. But how it is related to good will and to Categorical Imperative? Good will as was defined by Kant, is not good because of what it affects or achieved, but because of its fitness in attaining some proposed end. Duty can be considered as something that you do out of self –interest or for the sake of others.  It can be called a duty, if there is a moral content with it and at the same time, there is the will. Just like the example given, there is a wretched man who has a strong soul and more angered at his fate and longs for death, but preserves his life, out of duty, his duty to preserve his life, then you can call it as a duty out of good will. He knows taking one’s life is immoral, so he did his duty by preserving his life and not taking it. Categorical imperative, as defined by Kant is an “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” He said that act in such a way that you treat humanity, yourself or other people, not simply as a means but always at the same time an end. I believe that what he points out here is people must act from something that will benefit himself and other people, without any bad intention from doing it. A very good example I can think of is the politicians from our country. Election is nearing and if there are many calamities are coming to our country. They are helping those in need, but they are not helping them, because they feel good in helping them or it is out of their self interest, but they are doing that so that people will like them and vote for them, which returning again to our concept of duty, doesn’t have moral value.

What I learned:

• Categorical Imperative
• Good Will and Duty
• The end and the means
• People must act not simply as a means but at the always the end at the same time.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is categorical imperative?
2. When can you consider something as an act out of duty not out of inclinations?
3. What is Good will?
4. How is good will related to duty?
5. What do means and ends mean?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “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 recognize as goods, independently and in their own right.”

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn the factors why utilitarianism is subjected to debates.

Review:

The theory of utilitarianism focuses on happiness as being desirable and according to Rachels, it can be divided into to three parts to further summarize this. First, actions are judged based on the virtue of their consequences, whether it is right or wrong. Those who results from the best consequence can be considered as the right one. Second, the amount of happiness or unhappiness is what really matters in assessing consequences. He also said that the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness is the right action. Lastly, in measuring one’s happiness or unhappiness is no more important than the other person’s happiness. There are many flaws with utilitarianism, which some I see is incorporating morality with it. According to utilitarian’s view that what is good is one thing only and that is happiness. Whenever we have something that we value the most, such as friends, achievements and talents, we became happy.  Having friends with you, who you know you can trust the most, and who are really true makes you happy. Good is equals to happiness and you are happy, because you know that they are good, contrary to what hedonistic believes that you are think that they are good because they make you happy. Hedonistic view of happiness is contrary to what happiness is really is. Happiness is achieved when we attained goods and everything around is in their own right. Happiness have many forms and whether you are young or old, no matter what your race is, you recognize happiness for what you see it.

What I learned:

• Happiness is something wherein people recognize the importance of something for what it is.
• Hedonistic view
• There are many factors wherein you can say something is good or bad.

Integrative Questions:

1. Why is utilitarianism debated?
2. When can you say something as good or bad in utilitarianism’s point of view?
3. What are some of the flaws of utilitarianism?
4. How can happiness be measured?
5. Should utilitarianism be abolished? Why or why not?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “This, being according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts of human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not only to them, but so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation…”

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn about Utilitarianism as well as its relationship to morality.

Review:

Happiness is one thing that almost people can achieve, no matter your race, your status in life, you can achieve happiness.  There is what we call The Principle of Utility or The Greatest Happiness Principle, which believes that happiness is equal to pleasure. This principle believes that all actions leading to happiness can be considered good and if all actions lead to pain it can be considered as something bad. Happiness can be considered good if it promotes happiness. But if a person who smoke, because he finds pleasure in smoking and pleasure is equals to happiness, then how can it be categorized? There is what you call a higher pleasures wherein you will prefer mental pleasures over bodily pleasures, and lower pleasures, wherein you submit to the bodily pleasures. This example falls to lower pleasures, because the person knew that smoking is really bad for their health, but instead of avoiding it, their body has overtaken them and they continue to do this. Just like in loving a person, we are given the mind and the heart, our mind is on the top on all of the parts of the body, because we must first use this, before doing everything else. We are given that, so that we will use first our mind and then heart if the person is really the one. But what happens most of the time is that people use their hearts first, which in return doesn’t change anything and instead make things worse.

What I learned:

• Utilitarianism and Greatest Happiness Principle
• Just you are happy, doesn’t mean it is good already.
• There is what you call as higher and lower pleasure.
• There are many factors to be considered to say that happiness promotes pleasure.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is utilitarianism?
2. When can you say that an act is good or bad, in The Greatest Happiness Principle?
3. What are the two types of pleasure?
4. How can you justify that pleasure results to happiness?
5. How is utilitarianism related to morality?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: “It consists in simply denying that we can ever understand any culture except our own, well enough to make judgments about it.

What I Expect to learn: I expect to learn about moral isolation and how it affects people’s perception of other cultures.

Review:

Moral Isolation is being judged by people because they find the culture of a certain person to be something that they are not used to. They are judging it because they don’t understand the culture of that person, so that’s make them isolated. The culture we only understand and can fully follow is our culture only, so we don’t have the right to judge it. That’s why Midgley, called moral isolation as being immoral. An example that I can give is that, in Japan, the way they eat their “soba” or noodles, is with a slurping sound, it is their way to give respect for the food that they eat. But foreigners find it weird and find it as something which is very disrespectful when eating. We should not, in the first place, condemn and say anything bad about their culture, because in the first place, we don’t understand them, so we are not in the right place to give them judgments. What should people do is that they should not isolate themselves from the cultures of other people, but instead learn to be open and understand their culture wholeheartedly. Since we are all living in the same world, it is just fit for us to understand one another and avoid condemning each other, because we are all human, but with just different cultures. We must learn to accept and understand that there are different beliefs and cultures in each country, but we are living in the one world, and we have to accept and understand whoever they are, so that we won’t be left alone and isolated.

What I learned:

• Moral isolation definition and application
• Moral isolation is immoral
• We are living in the same world, so we must understand cultures of people.
• We should not condemn cultures of other people, because we don’t understand them in the first place.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is moral isolation?
2. Why is moral isolation immoral?
3. Why do most people condemn other cultures?
4. Why is it important to understand other people’s culture?
5. Is moral isolation a good or a bad practice? Why?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-8th-Eighth/dp/B001F6L2JQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264996150&sr=8-3-spell

Quote: Every elevation of the type “man” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society–

and so will it always be— a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings and requiring slavery in some form or other.

What I expect to learn: To learn what are the two types of morality based from Nietzsche’s point of view and the difference between the two types of morality.

Review:

Master and slave morality is the focus of this chapter. According to Nietzsche, a good society is a society wherein there is the leader or the superior must follow the master-morality. There are two types of morality as discussed by Nietzsche, the master-morality and the slave-morality. The master-morality is a type of morality, which states that the strong-willed, who can think on his own and knows when to keep silent, are the noble ones. Since all of these attitudes refer to dominance, it can be classified as the master-morality. On the other hand, the slave-morality is a type of morality, wherein people who are being dominated by the master, he who don’t trust anyone and don’t trust everything that is good, becomes the slave.

Being said the difference, we can see that the masters dominated the slaves, because the slaves are being suppressed while the masters are the one who dominates and are more powerful compared to the slaves. The master arouses good, while the slave arouses evil. In my opinion it applies most of the time in especially in third world countries. Masters are the ones who are dominating, because they have every opportunity to be at their best while the slaves are the ones who don’t have the opportunity to make a change in their lives. I believe that what Nietzsche wanted to point out is that, in a society, the leader must follow the master-morality, because a leader which lacks confidence and doesn’t trust other people, is not a good leader at all.

What I learned:

• What is master-morality and slave morality
• Difference of slave morality and master-morality

Integrative Questions:

1. What are the two types of morality, as pointed out by Nietzsche?

2. What is master-morality?

3. What is slave-morality?

4. What are the similarities of master-morality and slave-morality?

5. How do master and slave morality applies to the society?