James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Review Questions:

 

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?

 

There was a shepherd named Gyges who then found a magic ring in which when we he wears this he turned out to be invisible and thus would enable him to go anywhere and do anything left unseen. Gyges used his newfound ring to gain entry to the Royal Palace wherein he seduced the Queen, murdered the King, and subsequently seized the throne. 

 For in morality I shall see that Gyges method of seducing the queen was one in which morality was an issue. In the sense of seducing the queen was one morality that he shouldn’t do anything for such act was let’s just say against what is morally taught in Christians. Another thing would be the act of killing the King in which is against another Christian morality. There are two types of egoism, as according to what James Rachel wrote that one moral issue would be people tend to do an act to benefit themselves and another would be people tend to do such act in which he is living life freely that no obligations was mandated to him.

 

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

 

Psychological egoism is mainly a view in which all men are selfish in a sense that they are motivated by the beliefs they have and have benefit for it while ethical egoism is that people tend to view life as no obligation. He is living freely living in his own interest.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?

 

The first argument is basically the point of wherein if a person wants to do this act for this own good and care nothing for other people the mere fact he is thinking of himself then so it is selfish. Then for the second argument follows that the point of the action is really to achieve pleasant state of consciousness than bringing good to others.

 

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

 

• Confusion of selfishness with self-interest.

• Confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives.

• Confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

 

5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument?

 

For such that the thinking of an ethical egoist is mainly seeing themselves not for others. An example in the book was that when you burned off a mall and that was you wished for are you not thinking of others that you should more of think? We are talking of enjoying our beliefs while helping others, isn’t that you’re not helping others anymore. 

 

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?

 

Egoist wants not to hurt others. They simply have a philosophy that by hurting other or not extending to them benefits of helping them would simply mean that you are selfish; you are thinking more of yourself not others. For they want others to be benefited of our service. 

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?

Not specifically answered it but definitely has answered that certain question. For which he answered that we shouldn’t be confused for being moral in the judgment we had on our everyday life. Moral gives us challenges that we learn to be a better person in regard. By being moral we learn not just to treasure what we love but treasure our fellow men living here with us. By practicing morality simply means of living away from selfishness.

 

2. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they don’t know?

 

I think they were rare, for such all of us are living for ourselves not for other people. Service for others are lacking for people nowadays. I see few people spending their life for others in fact many people that I may attest that we live for ourselves really not for others. We have a high regard to those people in the Christian stage wherein we see them as our idol of morality, Christian laws and what have you but not all of us see that those people are those who violates this. For one thing is that we hear them preach about service for other but those people doesn’t practice is really. They tend to practice being selfish they are they of themselves to benefit but they didn’t see that those people around them much needs attention and guidance and those they have.

 

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

For me it is not in some cases, for which immoral acts are those acts that tends to practice violation of freedom and right. For me one example of immorality was you tend to practice freedom badly like you are now hurting others and stepping more of their freedom and right.

John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

 

Review Questions:

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

For morality for him is sort of an obligation to do such thing for the betterment of something. What I mean is in morality we are thinking of what we know is right, what is better while in religion we are having notion of spending life with what this superhuman being wants us to be and what is written in the authorative texts we have. We more live life based on thinking if it is against what this God/Allah is teaching us. We worship, thinking of this God will give us what we want, thanking Him for what we had that is.

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

One reason would be no man could be moral yet religious at the same time. As what John Arthur sees it, it is not moral religion is for morality but morality for religion. Morality will then serve as a guide to know and understand what religion is teaching us.

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

Because even though we have religion as a source of moral knowledge we should still see and compare on what the scripts tell into what the morality is giving us. We should still need to interpret what the bible says and what it wants us to be.

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

According to the book, divine command theory religion is necessary for morality because without God there could BE no right or wrong. For God provides the foundation of morality. One reason for rejection is that morality and divine command are not the same. We couldn’t say that when God commanded doesn’t mean morality.

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

Morality and religion is connected in ways like what we normally read and know in our religion will definitely match with morality in some ways. Morality will somehow be the guide in understanding what the scripts and what God wants us do be. Morality then is influenced by religion.

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

It means that morality can be passing through by means of socials in daily life. Well morality has influenced religion and much. Actually they both grow; both morality and religion as time pass by.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?

Based on what I see things Arthur have refuted the divine command theory duly because in this point that God cannot re arrange/re-model what His written models where. I mean, not all that God commanded and haven’t are right and wrong. What if God hasn’t tackled about a thing which is currently rampant in the world. Let say He haven’t mentioned that abortion is bad but many people are doing those. He can no longer change it, yeah?! 

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?

Well, for me we have acquired from our social life things which are morally right and therefore we can also practice morality to those nonhumans alike.

3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?

Moral education meaning to educate people on what is moral or not. Well one thing that can be done is to have an ethic class to know roughly on what is moral to what is not.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality

Review Questions:

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

For him, a good and healthy society is where both aristocrats and servants work on together as a team. No means of slavery and unjust rights and rules to be followed or implemented. A good and healthy society was that society living equally that no one would remain a high one which tends to let his people work. Society and those people living shouldn’t be living for his own but for the whole people.

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

For him, those are acts in which he sees that the true meaning of society for him wasn’t present. For which is those three are present when those people inside the society has a higher ups which is for him slavery should be there. For him, he wants his own will be followed not knowing that it brings bad to the society.

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

It is distinguish by its moral values like ruling a caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled or among the ruled class. You find distinctions as to whom it is for.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

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?

For me it wasn’t for he just only wrote what is normally is and right.

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

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Review Questions:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

It is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. It is then a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning.

  

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

This Japanese custom literally means to try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer. This was to try using a samurai to know whether that sword will be effective in slicing things. For reason that Midgley ask about this is that it is an example of what she’s trying to say about his article, if we do not know what it is then tendency is we nag and say something about that matter without knowing the real purpose of it.

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

Moral isolationism is more of laying down a general ban on moral reasoning. This is a program of immoralism in which it carries a distressing logical difficulty.

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

The basis for criticizing others culture is the culture of their own in which she raises the question “How can we can’t judge others culture, can we really judge our own?”

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 think that Nietzche is an immoralist he just do and say what he really wants.

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

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

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, sucha as lying and stealing.

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

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?

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Review Questions:

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

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

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

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

5. What is the third line of defense?

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

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?

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

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Review Questions:

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

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

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.

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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.

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

Joel Feinber: The Nature and Value of Rights

Review Questions:

1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of right and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?

3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville?

4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg?

5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

Discussion Questions:

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?

2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim0-ight?

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

Review Questions:

1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the U.S. Constitution?

2. Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are not moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.

3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?

4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

Discussion Questions:

1. Does a person have aright to break the law? Why or why not?

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?

3. Do you think that Kant would accept right in the strong sense or not?

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.

2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.

3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?

Discussion Questions:

1. On the first principle, each person ahs an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?

Annette C. Baier: The Need for More Than Justice

Review Questions:

1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do these perspectives develop?

2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier make of this theory?

3. Baier says there are three important differences between Kantian liberals and their critics. What are these differences?

4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian view that the reason should control unruly passions?

Discussion Questions:

1. What does Baier mean when she speaks of the need “to transvalue the values of our patriarchal past”? Do new values replace the old ones? If so, then do we abandon the old values of justice, freedom, and right?

2. What is wrong with the Kantian view that extends equal rights to all rational beings, including women and minorities? What would Baier say? What do you think?

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice. Granted, we do not choose our parent, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?