Janine Ko CMP

CONTEMPORARY
MORAL
PROBLEMS
(Chapter 1)
By: Janine Ko
Book review for IT-ETHIC
DLS-College of St.
Benilde 08-09
.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License
February 28,
CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS (CHAPTER 1)
2009
Table of Content:
I. Chapter I
i. James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism 3
ii. John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience 6
iii. Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality 9
iv. Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword 11
v. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism 14
vi. James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism 17
vii. Immanuel Kant: The categorical Imperative 20
viii. Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue 23
ix. Feinberg: The nature and value of rights 25
x. Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously 27
xi. Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice 29
xii. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice 31
xiii. National Library Copyright Receipt 34
xiv. Use Case Existing System 35
xv. Propose Use Case, Activity & Narative 37
2
February 28,
2009
Title: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Author: James E. White
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-

White/dp/0495553204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234087861&sr=1-1
Library Reference: N/A
Quote:
“To defend one is not to defend the other”
Learning Expectation:
To learn more about Egoism and Moral Scepticism. And What are this two types of Egoism
and how does it differ from each other. How does James Rachels discuss this two kind of egoism.
Review: Chapter 1: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
There are two types of Egoism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. This was discuss
by James Rachels. He was the University professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama. This
was about our morality that has full of assumptions. That people sometimes do things that might
affect other people. He even gave example about the legend if Gyges. He was a shepherd who has
found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. That with this ring a person can do anything
and could go anywhere without being detected. With this kind of power he use it in a wrong way that
affect other people. He uses this ring to seduce the Queen and murdered the king. And gain the
thrown after. This example is the man of rogue that will use his ring unscrupulously and do anything
just to gain wealth and power.
With this he came out with the two types of egoism. The Psychological Egoism that is “all men are
selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-
interest”. And on the other way Ethical egoism in a normative view about how men ought to act. They
have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interest.
This were it open the topic of doing or giving something for the sake of other. In the case of smith, he
gave up his trip the one he loves doing just to help his friend on his studies. This where they came on
the argument that maybe what smith do was selfish. Even though we can say that he do this because
he loves his friend and this was more important than his trip that shows in the sample the reason why
he gave up the trip that he want. Maybe selfishness in his self because eh give up something that he
really want for other. And maybe unselfish because he did something to help other people and even
he go to that trip it would be on his conscience that he was happy doing that trip while his friend is
having a big problem about his studies. This where they came out from arguing about psychological
Egoism. That why should we think that someone is selfish if he/she derives satisfaction from helping
others.
So we can’t say that smith is unselfish or selfish. Because there are lot of reasons for doing things
and making decisions. And it is important to make assumptions in underlying our moral practice. That
we should consider all things that is possible in making assumptions. Having an accurate moral
judgements and to know what we ought to do but not do it, is the main thing that tells in this part.
3
February 28,
2009
What I have learned:
In this chapter I have learned what is and egoism, how does we face this truths. That all the decisions
that we make should have a reason. And anything we do should be good to other. Like the example
of the legend of the Gyges, he does things for his own good without thinking of other that he is
affecting. Like in the story of smith, he give up what he wanted just to give something for his friend
that he think more important than his leisure.
Integrative Question:
1. Where does the ring came how does Gyges got it?
2. What is the different of Psychological Egoism from Ethical Egoism?
3. What does smith give up to help his friend?
4. How does Gyges got his wealth and power?
5. Who does Gyges seduce and kill?
Review Questions:
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The legend of Gyges was about a shepherd who has found a ring that has power. And use
this as in a bad way. He use this ring to have wealth and power. He didn’t think of anything
else than his self. There are lot of question that is raised about his morality. Like what reason
is there for him to continue being moral when it is clearly not to his own advantage to do so.
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism
Psychological Egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is
that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self interest. While Ethical Egoism is a
normative view about how men ought to act. That regardless of how men do in fact behave,
they have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interest.
3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these
arguments, and how does he reply to them?
The first argument was he descripe one person’s action as selfish and another person’s the
critical fact that in both cases assuming that the action is done voluntarily. Rachels reply to
this as he said that the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do.
The second argument is for psychological egoism. That since so called unselfish actions
always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in a pleasant state of consciousness.
4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of

psychological egoism?
The confusions of self interest, assumption, and the last one is assumption that a concern for
one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of other.
5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachel
accept this argument?
The argument is “To say that any action or policy of action is right entails that it is right for
anyone in the same sort of circumstances.” Rachels thinks that this argument would be
unwarranted.
4
February 28,
2009
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others?
How can the egoist reply?
Because we should think only of our self interest. And it is not right to harm other people
because of your own self interest. And helping other people is a nice way to help also yourself
gain your own egoism.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so,
what exactly is his answer?
No, He didn’t answer the question raised by Glaucon.
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 genuine egoist are rare because not all people would give up their own self interest just
to help other people. And not all people would care for others especially the people that they
didn’t know.
3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the
benefit of other and never in one’s own self-interest. Is much a view immoral or not?
It still varies because it depends on how a person considers this scenario either an immoral or
moral. And that we have different basis of morality and immorality because of our free will.
5
February 28,
2009
Title: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Quote:
“God made us and all the world. because of that he has an absolute claim on our obedience. From it
follows that a thing is not right simply because we think it is. It is right because god command it.”
- Bishop R. C. Mortimer
I expect to learn in this chapter the connection of religion to morality and conscience. And how does
this related or differ from each other. How does John Arthur describe this in his own philosophy. And
who is John Arthur why does he wrote about this book.
Review: Chapter 1: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience
John Arthur discuss and rejects the three kinds of morality. He said that morality had been thought to
depend on the religion, in this part we will be more concerned on our morality because without it, what
could happen to our society what could be possibly happening in our society without this. And what
would it mean to our society to have morality.
In the first part the Morality and Religion there are many question that is made on what if there would
be no social moral code in our society, how would it react in our life now. That people would have no
guilt. When there is no moral the notions of the duty, right, and obligations would not be present.
People would have no tendency to evaluate or criticize the right or wrong and the behaviour of other.
Then what if we are lack of religion? What could be the result. People would have been worshiping
many god at the same time. And having many beliefs that they just want to believe on. He also
differentiated the Morality between religion. That morality is a tend to evaluate the behaviour of others
and to feel guilt at certain actions when we perform them. While the religion involves beliefs in
supernatural powers that created and perhaps also control the nature. Because people belief in those
things. And that morality is dependent on religion to in many various ways he has explains.
The second part of the Religious Motivation and Guidance is about doing things on what is right. And
the religious motivation that they provided is that god is the creator of the universe and has ordained
that his plan should be followed. And that it is important for once to lived their life ordained plan. And
said that god will reward those who follow his commands by providing for them a place in heaven or
by ensuring that they prosper and are happy on earth.
And the third part about the divine command theory, that is said that without god their would be no
right or wrong. And god provides the foundation or bedrock on which morality is grounded. There was
this idea that was expressed by Bishop R. C. Mortimer it is said that, “God made us and all the world.
because of that he has an absolute claim on our obedience. From it follows that a thing is not right
simply because we think it is. It is right because god command it.” Morality has been influence by the
religion, but it is said that morality’s social character extends deeper even than that.
6
February 28,
2009
I have learned that morality has been connected with the religion. And religious has affect our life so
much. Even the way we have our daily life. that in our belief without god their would be no right or
wrong between all the things that has happen.
1. What is Morality?
2. How does Morality related to religion?
3. Who is John Arthur?
4. What is Religious motivation and guidance?
5. What does Bishop R. C. Mortimer said?
6.
Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion differ?
The different between Moral is then to tend to evaluate the behaviour of others and to feel
guilt at certain actions when we perform. While the religion on the other hand is involves
beliefs in supernatural powers. That created and also control nature.
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Religion is not necessary for moral motivations because it can stand without the religion and
the religious motives are far from the only ones people have. In order to make a decision to
do the right thing is made for a variety of reasons. And we were raised to be a decent person,
and that’s what we are. Behaving fairly and treating others well is more important than
whatever we might gain in our bad deeds.
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
Religion is not necessarily a source of moral knowledge because we need to know about
religion and revelation in order for religion to provide moral guidance. And the confusion of to
whom of those God of different religion that exist to follow or to believe on to have moral
guidance is still another factor for not necessarily considering religion as a moral knowledge.
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. Also that only by assuming God sits at
the foundation of morality can we explain the objective difference between right and wrong.
Arthur says “I think, in fact, theists should reject the divine command theory. One reason is
what it implies. To adopt the divine command theory therefore commits its advocate to the
seemingly absurd position that even the greatest atrocities might be not only acceptable but
morally required if God were to command them.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Morality and religion is connected through the historical influence of religions have had on the
development of morality as well as on politics and law.
7
February 28,
2009
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
Dewey, according to Arthur, says Morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends
on socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others, and governs our
interactions with others in society. But it also demands, as Dewey put it, that we know “with”
others, envisioning for ourselves what their points of view would require along with our own.
Conscience demands we occupy the positions of others.
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
Yes, Arthur refuted the divine command theory.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to
nonhuman animals? (Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to it
in footnote 6).
To have any obligation to nonhuman animals, prevent torturing animals; rest on sympathy
and compassion while human relations are more likely resting on morality’s inherently social
nature and on the dictates of conscience viewed as an assembly of others.
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethic class count as moral
education?
For Dewey Moral education is both actual and imagined in which morality cannot exist without
the broader, social perspective introduced by others, and this social nature ties it. Private
moral reflection taking place independently of the social world would be no moral reflection at
all; and moral education is not only possible, but essential.
8
February 28,
2009
Title: Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality

Quote:
“Beyond good and Evil”
I Expect to learn on this part on what does Friedrich Nietzsche says about the master- and slave
morality. How does this things related to each other. what can be master slave morality does in our
life.
Review: Chapter 1: Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality
In this part Nietzsche talks about having a healthy society. Friedrich Nietzsche was a German
philosopher and poet who is often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and
deconstructionism. Nietzsche shares his view about the elevation of man. That there are different
types of human beings. That our society is believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and
differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. He said that
men with still natural nature, they are still barbarians in every terrible sense of the word. Men are still
on possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power.
That man is indeed have a different traits. In the other part of this he mention about corruptions. In
what point could it be called corruption for man to do something what is for himself only. He mention
that we could have a good and healthy society only by having a superior individuals. That allows to
exercise their will to power.
He also discuss the mutuality from injury, violence and exploitation. This may cause many problems
to one individuality. This may affect us in some part like in organizations. There is also a will of denial
of life which is a principle of dissolution and decay. In government there is such a topic as Corruption
that as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts and that the foundation
of the emotions called life.
There is also as what they called Good and evil where according to slave-morality the evil man
arouses fear and it is precisely the good man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad
man is regarded as the despicable being. It maybe a slight and well intentioned at last attaches itself
even to the good man of this morality. Because according to the servile mode of thought the good
man must in any case be the safe man, he is good natured easy deceived perhaps a little stupid.
I have learned that there should be no master or slave in every way. But we cannot control this facts
that in some place they level each person as master who are the one being followed while in slave
they are the people who follow what their master wants. And should allow everyone to practice the will
of power.
9
February 28,
2009
1. What is slave-morality?
2. What is Master-morality?
3. How does Corruption connected to this topic?
4. What does Nietzsche said about the slave-master morality?
5. How can we distinguish a slave from master
Review Questions:
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society that should allow superior individuals to
exercise their will to power, their divine toward domination and exploitation of the interior.
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
Nietzsche’s view about the injury, violence and exploitation that is to put one’s will on a par
with that of others, this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals
when the necessary conditions are given.
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.
He distinguish that moral- morality is emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom.
While the slave-morality is for weakness, submission, sympathy and love.
4. Explain the Will to power.
Having rights, with everybody can do this and should have the right to show what he/she can
do with it.
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?
I think Nietzsche’s writings are justified well. Because he explain the concepts and all have
been formulated well.
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values?”
To be a creator of values means one has heroic individualism that makes a person an over
man. He will be the creator of master morality and the likes.
10
February 28,
2009
Title: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Quote:
“When we judge something to be bad or good, better or worse than something else, we are taking it
as an example to aim at or avoid.”
In this part I expect to know more about the New sword of the Japanese culture. Howd does Mary
Midgley criticize about it and what can he said about that. Why does this part of this book and how
can I connect this with other topics and on contemporary moral problems. How can we say that this is
moral.
Review: Chapter 1: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
In this part it is titled Trying out one’s new sword because of Midgleys discussion about the
Moral isolationism. On how does we respect once culture, and how does we criticize them when we
don’t really know why they do that culture. And we don’t really understand things on why they do does
cultures. We try to understand different culture that are strange to use. We see changes in our lifetime
or some culture left by our parents.
But first of all who is Mary Midgley, she is taught philosophy at the university of Newcastle-upon- tyne
in England for twenty years and now she has retired. She attacks Moral Isolationism that is the view
of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we don’t understand. And that
came the example of the Japanese culture of the practice of trying out new samurai sword on a
chance wayfarer.
It is said that we cannot criticize once culture if we our self didn’t experience it, but some other
question are raises like are the other people in that culture criticize us?. Does they think the same
way for our cultures.
But does this means that we cannot judge ones culture, because judging is only and expression from
people. Expressing their own opinions. But if we cannot judge other how can we say that we are
learning and we what to learn. And this judging come from comparison also. We compare our own
culture to other on what we only see. And I think that is the wrong thing about that, we put criticize on
what we say without knowing on why does this happen. And if we cant judge other cultures, then can
we really judge our own.
But judging is not at all bad, because we came to point that we are just asking not criticizing their
cultures. We can say something but they can defend their self and say and explain to the point until
we understand those things and we may accept it. Like in the example of the culture of the japans
about the sword, we can say that they are brutal or what, but they can explain more to use that there
is a point of doing those things. and making those culture work. Maybe for some people they wouldn’t
understand it, but for Japanese this is their way of doing and making all things work. So how can we
say that moral isolationism is not good. At all there is a point in every discussion that we make.
11
February 28,
2009
I learn that we should make judges about other cultures, but it’s not also bad to come to point where
you compare your culture from other. and where we cannot understand others culture because those
people don’t understand us to. We cannot make judges until we know the reason of their cultures.
Thus me must ask first and learn first on not only to what we see and hear from other. we can ask but
we cannot make criticism.
1. How does Midgley discus the Moral Isolationism?

2. What is wrong to the Tsuijigiri the Japanese custom?
3. What are the question that Midgley made?
4. Why does Midgley said that Nietzsche is and immoralist?
5. How Midgley describe the judging on onces culture?
6. What are some involve in judging?
7. Who is Mary Midgley?
8. Does once culture can be same to other?
9. Can we just judge other cultures?
10. What are the things we must consider first before we judge once culture?
Review Questions:
1. What is “Moral isolationism”?
The view in which we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. And we cannot say
something about it until we really know why they do that cultures.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What question does Midgley ask about this
custom?
This Japanese custom of tsuijigiri is that a samaurai 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 injure his honour, offend
his ancestors and even let down his emperor.
3. What is wrong with Moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
You wouldn’t know which is real and which is which to believe on. And we have to distinguish
between those worth learning from and those who are not.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
Asking question and listening to the people who experience those cultures. Because they
may came to point where they can understand those things before criticizing other cultures.
But it’s alright to judge because that came to point where they can compare their culture with
others.
12
February 28,
2009
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment
of Nietzsche? Why or Why not?
No, because it’s like judging ones culture on what you see and read. He only said that on
based on what Nietzsche had say but it’s not a fair assessment to said that Nietzsche is and
immoralist.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is
unreal? Explain your answer?
Nope, because we all have different cultures and we cannot have the same one. And we
cannot say that does are unreal they are just separate and unmixed to each other.
13
February 28,
2009
Title: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Quote:
I expect to learn in this part is what is Utilitarianism, how does this connect to moral problems. What
can we learn about it and what are some of John Stuart Mill site about it. How will he discuss this
things.
Review: Chapter 1: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill discuss about Utilitarianism, it’s about producing happiness. And by happiness are
intended pleasure, and the absence of pain by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. It
includes the idea of Pain and pleasure. And what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, If
one of the two is by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other
that they prefer it even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to
overall utility that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. For John
Stuart Happiness is anything that produce pleasure and freedom from pain.
He also mention about the principle of Utility that all happiness is desirable, all the things that as an
end is desirable. And that we must desired for our own happiness for our own sake. So we must think
what could make us happy not what is happiness. Because we can have what we want and need to
be happy every time we need it. What pleasures are the things that we must remember. In other part
there is happiness for other people, that we care for them and we are happy helping them. We are
happy seeing other people without caring for our own.
We can reach our own happiness on what we desire. And by learning the pleasure that would make
us happy. Its just in the mind of people on what could make them happy.
1. How can one be happy?

2. What is Utilitarianism?
3. How does John Stuart discuss utilitarianism?
4. How can one produce happiness?
5. Why happiness is and intended pleasure?
14
February 28,
2009
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.
Principle of utility is to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and
more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality
is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend
on quantity alone. Proposes that all punishment involves pain and is therefore evil; it ought
only to be used so far as it promises to exclude some greatest evil.
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of
swine?
The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beast is felt a degrading, precisely because a
beast pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness. The charged could
not be gainsaid, but would then no longer imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were
precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the
one would be good enough for the other.
3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasure by saying what he mean by difference of
quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more
valuable than the other, merely as pleasure, except it’s being greater in amount, there is but
one possible answer. Of two pleasures if there be one to which all or almost all who have
experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to
prefer it, that is the mere desirable pleasure.
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
Mill defines "happiness" to be both intellectual and sensual pleasure. He argues that we have
a sense of dignity that makes us prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual ones. He adds that
the principle of utility involves assessing an action's consequences, and not the motives or
character traits of the agent. Mill argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for
generating secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness. Thus most of our
actions will be judged according to these secondary principles. He feels that we should
appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a moral dilemma between
two secondary principles.
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility.
Mill's proof for the principle of utility notes that no fundamental principle is capable of a direct
proof. Instead, the only way to prove that general happiness is desirable is to show man's
desire for it.
His proof is as follows: If X is the only thing desired, then X is the only thing that ought to be
desired. Thus if general happiness is the only thing desired, therefore general happiness is
the only thing that ought to be desired. Mill recognizes the controversiality of this and
therefore anticipates criticisms. A critic might argue that besides happiness, there are other
things, such as virtue, which we desire. Responding to this, Mill says that everything we
desire becomes part of happiness. Thus, happiness becomes a complex phenomenon
composed of many parts, such as virtue, love of money, power, and fame.
15
February 28,
2009
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you
think?
Happiness can have lot of sources, and it’s not just pleasure or the absence of pain. Maybe
this are some part of being happy or having happiness. But its not just that, there are lot more
reason to be happy. And that’s what we must look in our life on what could make us more
happy except from our pleasure and the absence of pain.
2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower
ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the
higher ones?
Yes, Mill has convince me with the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones.
And the people who prefers lower pleasures we cannot blame them because we have our
own choices and view in life on what we will believe.
3. Mill says. “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the
ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?
I think the Golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth is true, because we could act as like what other
people act in that situation.
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?
Yes, because he did not consider the individuality of each person in his principle of
Utility. It cannot be applied to the whole.
16
February 28,
2009
Title: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Quote:
“The Utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all
other things being desirable as means to that end”
In this chapter I expect to learn more about Utilitarianism and how James Rachels would debate and
would explain more things about Utilitarianism. How it would be knowledgeable for us to read this part
and to read more about Utilitarianism.
Review: Chapter 1: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism
This part of the chapter 1 has an debate over the utilitarianism, it is said that utilitarian doctrine is that
happiness is desirable. That right actions are simply those that have the best consequences. And in
assessing consequence the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is
caused. And that in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused no one’s happiness
is to be counted as more important than anyone else.
The utilitarianism argument show that only the classical theory are the one needs to be modified. And
they say the basic idea is correct and should be preserved but recast into a more satisfactory form.
And the idea that happiness is the one ultimate good is known as Hedonism. It is a perennially
poplular theory that goes back.
They also give example of two way of having an unhappiness, one is when someone loose something
that he/she likes doing. Like having an accident and loosing your hand when you want to play piano,
and now you cant play because of the accident. It’s like loosing what makes you happy. And you will
feel upset and frustrated. And the other example is when you trust someone that makes you happy
then he betray you behind your back. That makes you unhappy because you value what you know
that makes you happy. And we value all sorts of things, including artistic creativity and friendship for
their own sakes.
And the most fundamental idea underlying the theory is that in order to determine whether an action
would be right, we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. And in this part they also talk
about some Justice, that justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs
and merits. Not only on what would make us happy. The utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that
people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipates good results.
I learn that happiness cannot be taken as a selfish act. We must think of others first before we do
something. And before we think that that would make us happy. We must look on what could be the
effect of this idea. And sometimes we should value on what makes us happy than unhappy. We
should think that there is more on that.
17
February 28,
2009
1. What could make one person happy?

2. What is Utilitarian?
3. What does James Rachel said about Utilitarianism?
4. How does one can handle ones happiness?
5. How can have justice?
Review Questions:
1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions.

What are they?
These are the three proposition from classical utilitarianism that has been summed up. The
first preposition is that actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
Nothing else matters. The second preposition is that in accessing consequences, the only
thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. The third
preposition is that in calculating happiness or unhappiness what will be caused, no one’s
happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare is
equally important.
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this
problem?
The problem of hedonism is that 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. The theory, which at first seemed
so progressive and commonsensical, now seems indefensible; it is at odds with such
fundamental moral notions as justice and individual rights, and seems unable to account for
the place of backward-looking reasons in justifying conduct.
3. What are the objections about justice, rights and promises?
Justice-the argument is only if someone were in the position then on utilitarian grounds he
should bear false witness against the innocent person. Therefore according to utilitarianism,
lying is a thing to do. But the argument continues it would be wrong to bring about the
execution of the innocent man. Justice requires that we treat people fairly. According o their
individual needs and merits.
Rights- utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if the produce a favorable happiness
over unhappiness. It is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was caused.
In that case the utilitarian conclusions apparently would be that their actions are morally all
right.
Promises- there are important general lesson to be learned from this argument. Why is
utilitarianism vulnerable to this sort of criticism? It is because the only kinds of considerations
that the theory holds relevant to determine the rightness of actions are considerations having
to do with their future.
4. Distinguish between rule-and act-utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to

the objections?
Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the right action is the one
which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of
beings. Act utilitarianism is opposed to rule utilitarianism, which states that the morally right
action is the one that is in accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would
create the most happiness.
18
February 28,
2009
5. What is the third line of defense?
The third line of defense is, On this way of thinking an act utilitarian is a perfectly indefensible
doctrine and does not need to be modified. Rule utilitarianism by contrast is unnecessarily
watered down version theory which gives rule a greater importance than they merit. Act-
utilitarian is however recognizes to be radical doctrine which implies that many of our ordinary
moral feelings may be mistaken. In this respect it does what good philosophy always doest it
what good philosophy always does it challenges us to rethink matters that we have therefore
taken for granted.
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 this was not acceptable because I think it is not right to reject common moral beliefs.
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?
I think we must all be considered to be given the moral consideration. All that is created by
god.
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility.
Do you agree?
Yes I agree.
19
February 28,
2009
Title: Immanuel Kant: The categorical Imperative

Quote:
“It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world”
In this part I expect to learn what does Categorical imperative means, and how does this connected to
contemporary moral problems. And how will Immanuel Kant would describe this things and relate this
to the real world.
Review: Chapter 1: Immanuel Kant: The categorical Imperative
In the first part of this The categorical imperative, Immanuel Kant describe the Good will. He said that
this can be taken as good without qualifications. And power, wealth, honour, even health and that
complete well-being and contentment with one’s state which goes by the name of happiness, produce
boldness and as a consequence with this often over boldness as well. Unless good will is present by
which their influence on the mind and so too the whole principle of action.
He also mentions that a good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes. Because of
its fitness for attaining what we want. And as we elucidate the concept of a will estimable in itself a
good apart from any further and, this concept in which is already present in a sound natural
understanding and requires not so much to be tough as merely to be clarified. Then we will therefore
take the concept of duty, which includes that of a good will, exposed to certain subjective limitations
and obstacles.
He also said that to preserve one’s life is a duty. So besides this everyone has also and immediate
inclination to do so. But on account of this the often anxious precautions taken by the greater part of
mankind for this purpose have no inner worth, and the maxim of their action is without moral content.
And to help others is a duty, besides this there are many spirits of so sympathetic a temper that
without any further motive of vanity or self-interest, they find an inner pleasure in spreading happiness
around them and can take delight in the contentment of others as their own work.
There are some illustration that he enumerate:
1. A man feels sick of life as the result of a series of misfortunes that has mounted to the point of
despair, but he is still so far in possession of his reason as to ask himself whether taking his
own life may not be contrary to his duty to himself
2. Another finds himself driven to borrowing money because of need.
3. A third finds in himself a talent whose cultivation would make him a useful man for all sorts of
purposes.
4. And lastly he find himself flourishing but he sess others who have to struggle with great
hardship.
20
February 28,
2009
So he say that man in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself. And as the human will
is concerned a categorical imperative it must be such that from the idea of something which is
necessarily an end for every one because it is and end in himself it forms and objective principle of
the will and consequently can serve as a practice of law.
I learn that to help other is a duty, man exist in every way. We have our own way of doing our good
will. Maybe some won’t see it or mention about it but we have different way of expressing our own
good will to others.
1. What are the illustrations he enumerate?

2. What is categorical imperatives?
3. How does he describe the good will?
4. What are the good will that we can make?
5. How does one do good will?
Review Questions:
1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.
Kant’s account the good will by describing it as 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.
2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
Human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one
ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive.
He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be
necessary. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance. While A
categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement
that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself.
3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal
law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self
and others.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is "Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means
and end), and explain it.
The second version of the categorical imperative is "Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time
as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
The second formulation also leads to the imperfect duty to further the ends of ourselves and
others. If any person desires perfection in himself or others, it would be his moral duty to seek
that end for all people equally, so long as that end does not contradict perfect duty.
21
February 28,
2009
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.
I think it is one basic rule because in the categorical imperative it is just concerning about the
content in which it is not really certain difference in rules.
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.
Yes I agree.
3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative(particularly the first

formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good
criticism?
I think this was not a good criticism.
22
February 28,
2009
Title: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

Quote:
“All human seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor or wealth.”
In this part I expect to learn about Happiness and virtue, what is the different of both of them. And
how does Aristotle describe this both. And how does he differentiate this two. And how can we relate
to morale.
Review: Chapter 1: Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue
In this part Aristotle argues that all human being seek happiness. And that happiness is not pleasure,
honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. He said that each man judges
well the things he knows and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in
a subject is a good judge of that subject. And the man who has received an all-round education is a
good judge in general.
He also said that verbally there is very general agreement for both the general run of men and people
of superior refinement say that it is happiness. And identify living well and doing well with being
happy. But with regard to what happiness is they differ and the many do not give the same account as
the wise.
Aristotle said that to judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type
seem to identify the good, or happiness with pleasure. Which is the reason why they love the life of
enjoyment. And that just mention the political and thirdly the contemplative life. If there is an end for
all that we do, this will be the good achievable by action, and if there are more than one these will be
the goods achievable by action.
Because for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else, but honour,
pleasure, reason, and ever virtue we choose indeed for themselves. But we choose them also for the
sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. He also mentions that
happiness on the other hand no one chooses for the sake of these, or, in general, for anything other
than itself.
There are characteristic that has been mention like characteristic that are looked for in happiness
seem also all of them to belong to what we have defined happiness as being. For some happiness
with virtue, for some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic wisdom, others with
these, or one of these accompanied by pleasure or not without pleasure, while others include also
external prosperity.
And since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue, we must consider the
nature of virtue for perhaps we shall thus see better the nature of happiness.
23
February 28,
2009
I learned that happiness is not by pleasure or what we get more often. It is feel more deeply inside.
And we must understand more virtual inside and happiness on what makes us real happy. That is
what we call happiness and virtue.
1. What is happiness?
2. How can one achieve happiness?
3. What is the difference of happiness from virtue?
4. How does Aristotle Describe happiness
5. What does one needs to be happy?
Review Questions:
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related

to pleasure?
According to Aristotle happiness is not pleasure,honor or wealth. But instead it is an activity

of the soul in accordance with virtue. And virtue has two kinds the moral and intellectual.
2. How does Aristotle explain moral virue? Give some examples.
Aristotle explain moral virtue as training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is
a mean between the vices of excessand deficiency. One example that aristotle gives is when
he potrays the virtue of courage as a mean between the extremes of rashness and
cowardice.
3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explain it? If not,
who cannot be happy?
Yes. as long as everyone portrays the virtue of courage and take an effort to produce
happiness that is found in the activity of reason or contemplation.
1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beast. But what, if anything, is
wrong with a life of pleasure?
Their could be a lot of a reason with pleasuring a life, one can be a pleasure out of what you
call greediness, on can be a reason out of loneliness, and incompleteness. So it depends on
a person if he/she see it as a beast so we can say that Aristotle has a point when he say life
of pleasure can be such a beast.
2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? Do
you agree or not?
I don't agree that philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Maybe he said this because
philosophers are the found their own theory that makes them complete with everything they
know. But we all have equal happiness and different way to express our happiness. So we
cannot say that they are happier and anyone else.
24
February 28,
2009
Title: Joel Feinberg: The nature and value of rights

Quote:
“Never Entirely forget their pasts”
I expect to learn in this part is more about how to value the rights. What is the importance of rights in
our world. How does Joel Feinberg value and explain this rights to the people. And why it is morally
important to know this.
Review: Chapter 1: Joel Feinberg: The nature and value of rights
In this part Joel Feinberg demonstrate that rights are morally important. That in nature the value of
rights should be the one in front and take actions of. With this he give and example of a place called
Nowheresville, where it’s very much like our own world except that in their no one has a right even
anyone of them has the right with their world. If we imagine that we live in this place, we cannot live
well because we don’t follow anything. Anything would be at risk.
He explains the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties that is said that all duties entail
other people’s right and all rights entail other people duties. He explains the concept of whice the
position of doctrine for him in some part as he sense as yes and in a sense of no. That there should
be a duty. If we imagine our world where no one has right , what could happen there is no duty. Duty
that associated with actions that are due to someone else. Like payments, legal fees and other things.
Feinberg also explain the concept of personal desert from the new York cab driver, that if he has
earned his gratuity by god, he has it coming and there had better be sufficient acknowledgment of
his desert or he’ll give you a peace of his mind. That there is the making of a paradox in the queerly
unstable concept of an Earned gratuity. And one can understand how desert in the weak
sense of propriety or mere fittingness that tends to generate a stronger sense in which desert is
itself the ground for a claim of right.
How can we imagine our world without rights, this could make our world at risk and a big risk. That
their so much to loose with this concept.
In this part I have learn that the value of rights in everything is important. Maybe some people don’t
value this much but as we look forward we will learn how could this affect our life. that without this
maybe we’ll be at big risk in our own world.
25
February 28,
2009
1. Why is rights important?

2. How does Feinberg demonstrate that rights are morally important?
3. Why he said that this is morally important in our world?
4. What is the difference of Nowheresvillle from our world?
5. Do we think that their rules can be applied to us?
Review Questions:
1. Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?
Nowheresville is a world that is very much like our own. But the only different is that no one
has a rights or any one has no rights in their world.
2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s
position on this doctrine?
This doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties, said that all duties entail other
people’s right and all rights entail other people duties. Only that the first part of the doctrine
the alleged entailment from duties to right need concern to us.
Feinberg’s position on this doctrine for him some part of the doctrine in a sense yes and in a
sense no.
3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal
desert work in Nowheresville?
Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert from the new York cab driver, that if he has
earned his gratuity by god, he has it coming and there had better be sufficient
acknowledgment of his desert or he’ll give you a peace of his mind. That there is the making
of a paradox in the queerly unstable concept of an Earned gratuity. And one can understand
how desert in the weak sense of propriety or mere fittingness that tends to generate a
stronger sense in which desert is itself the ground for a claim of right.
In Nowheresville they would have only the original weak kind of desert. That it will be
impossible to keep this idea out if they allow such practices as teachers grading students,
judges awarding prizes and servants serving benevolent but class conscious masters.
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 Fienberg think they are morally important?
1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
Yes for me Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights.
2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?
A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties
regarding the right-holder.
26
February 28,
2009
Title: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

Quote:
“People have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.”
In this chapter I expect to learn what are the rights that we must take seriously, how does his can be a
moral to us. How does Ronald dworkin describe this things, and what are the things that must be
understand in this part.
Review: Chapter 1: Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
In this part Ronald Dworkin view that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to
interfere with them. And the concept of rights, and particularly the concept of right against the
Government has its most natural use when a political society is divided and appeals to co-operation
or a common goal are pointless. But some philosophers reject the idea that citizens have rights apart
from what the law happens to give them.
There is also what he said about the constitution fuses legal and moral issues, by making the validity
of a law depend on the answer to complex moral problems, like the problem of whether a particular
statute respects the inherent equality of all men.
And it is also said that in most cases when we say that someone has right to do something we imply
that it would be wrong to interfere with his doing it, or at least that some special grounds are needed
for justifying any interference. Because it would be wrong for anyone to interfere with you even though
you propose to spend your money in a way that I think is wrong.
And he also said that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do
something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do, or that he does no wrong in
doing it.
There are some who agree with this the conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man
does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. And when individual
citizens are said to have rights against the Government but however like the right to free speech, that
must mean that this sort of justification is not enough.
And Ronald Dworkin said also that not all legal rights, or even Constitutional rights represent moral
rights against the Government. But those Constitutional rights that we call fundamental like the right of
free speech, are supposed to represent rights against the government in the strong sense that the
point of the boast that our leagal system respects the fundamental rights of the citizen.
27
February 28,
2009
I have learned that we must take our rights seriously, in every way. Because there is different ways in
distinguishing our rights and we must take a look at it clearly and understand it very well. So we would
know what to do and what we should we take on focus on.
1. What does Dworkin said about having rights?

2. What are the rights in to break a law?
3. How would we know our rights?
4. How does one know if he/she has the right to do something?
5. How does this relate to moral?
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 rights. Give some examples of leagal rights that
are not moral rights, and moral rights 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 of rights?
1. Does a person have a right 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 rights in the strong sense or not?
28
February 28,
2009
Title: Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice

Quote:
“the concept identity expands to include the experience of interconnection”
In this part I expect to learn more on what are the need for more than justice. What are the things that
must be remembered. And how will Annette baier discuss this need for justice. And how does this
relate to morale.
Review: Chapter 1: Annette Baier: The Need for More than Justice
In this part Annette Baier, who teaches philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. And Carol Gilligan
they distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such as kant and Rawls and the
care perspective Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development of woman. They argues that
the justice perspective by its adequate as a moral theory. They overlooks inequalities between people
it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice and it ignores importance of moral emotions such as
love.
I have learn in this part the two types of perspectives. And the moral development that they argue
about woman and man. And how we need justice more.
1. What is care perspectives?

2. What is justice perspectives?
3. Who is Annette Baier?
4. Who is Gilligan?
5. What is the theory of moral development?
Review Questions:
1. Distinguish between the justice and care perspectives. According to Gilligan, how do
these perspectives develop?
Care perspective is less authoritarian humanitarian supplement. That there is a felt

concern for the good of other and for community. While Justice more communitarian but
it needs social ideals to supplement it.
29
February 28,
2009
2. Explain Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. What criticisms do Gilligan and Baier
make of this theory?
The Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is for namely ones that require respect for each
person’s individual rational will, or autonomy, and conformity to any implicit social contract
such wills are deemed to have made, or to any hypothetical ones they would make if thinking
clearly. This was applied to female as well as male subjects.
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?
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 rights?
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 donot
choose our parents, but still don’t we have freedom of choice about many things, and
isn’t this very important?
30
February 28,
2009
Title: Rawls: A Theory of Justice

Quote:
“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar
liberty for others”
In this part I expect to learn on what are the theory of Justice. How does John Rawls describe each of
them. What are the parts and the two kind of this theory of justice.
Review: Chapter 1: John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
This part will discuss more about the Theory of justice, he explain the two theory of justice. And what
are the parts that must be remember in having a fair society. He also tells about the original position
he opens his view about it.
Rawls’s conception of the original position is for fairness of equality corresponds to the state of
nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This Original position is said that not of course
thought of as an actual historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture.
The two principle of justice are:
a. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a
similar liberty for others.
b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: reasonably
expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to position and offices open to all.
The first part explains the means that all liberties are all required to be equal and since citizens of a
just society are to have the same basic right. While the second one explains that this applies, in the
first approximation, to the distribution of income and wealth and to the design of organizations that
make use of differences in authority and responsibility or chains of command. While the distribution
of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone’s advantage, and at the same
time, positions of authority and offices of command must be accessible to all.
I have learned that in learning the two principle of justice, you must first take a look at some of the
consideration that they will mention. On what are the things that applies with this concept. I have
understand and learn the two principle of justice well.
31
February 28,
2009
1. What does the first principle means?

2. What does the second principle means?
3. What is original position?
4. How can be fairness achieve?
5. What is the theory of justice?
Review Questions:
1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.
Rawls’s conception of the original position is for fairness of equality corresponds to the state
of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This Original position is said that not of
course thought of as an actual historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of
culture.
2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.
The first principle of justice was:
“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a
similar liberty for others.
This means that all liberties are all required to be equal and since citizens of a just society are
to have the same basic right
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot
be sacrificed?
The second principle of Justice was:
“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: reasonably
expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to position and offices open to all.”
This applies, in the first approximation, to the distribution of income and wealth and to the
design of organizations that make use of differences in authority and responsibility or chains
of command. While the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to
everyone’s advantage, and at the same time, positions of authority and offices of command
must be accessible to all.
1. On the first principle, each person has 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 a 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?
Nope does right in homosexual activities or produce or view pornography are not counted as
to the first principle the equal rights that they are talking are like having a rule of law. But in a
fair one, that everyone has an equal right. And the basic liberties of citizens are, roughly
speaking, political liberty together with freedom of speech and assembly, and liberty of
conscience and freedom of thought.
32
February 28,
2009
2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon
different principles than those given 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?
Yes, it is possible for free and rational person to agree upon different principles. Because
people have different point of view and opinions.
33
February 28,
2009
National Library Copyright Receipt
34
February 28,
2009
Existing Use Case
35
February 28,
2009
Existing Use case system of Nation Library
Use Case Diagram Reference Number:
<<#>>
Version Number:
3.0
System Name: Copyright System
36
February 28,
2009
Propose Use Case,

Activity & Narative
37
February 28,
2009
Use Case Diagram Reference Number:
<<#>>
Version Number:
1.0
38
February 28,
2009
Identification Summary:
Title: Log-In
Summary: Users need to Log-IN first to be able to get application form.
Creation Date: February 28, 2009
Modification Date:
Version: 1.0
Person-in-charge: Janine Tan Ko
Actors: User
Flow of Events:
Pre Conditions:
1. Users will register from the site and log-in
Main Success Scenario:

1. Users will enter User name and password
2. The system will confirm and verify
3. If accepted the user can browse.
Post Conditions
1. Multiple users.
Alternative Sequence:
1. Server’s down.
39
February 28,
2009
Activity Diagram of the Log-in Reference Number:

(Referral) Use Case
<<#>>
Version Number:
1.0
40
February 28,
2009
Title: Register
Summary: Users needs to register before logging in to the system
Modification Date:
Version: 1.0
Actors: User
Flow of Events:
Pre Conditions:
1. Users will register from the site and log-in

1. Users will fill up the application
2. The system will save the account
3. The system will record new account Info
Post Conditions
1. Unable to record new account properly
4. Server’s down.
41
February 28,
2009
Activity Diagram of the Register Reference Number:

(Referral) Use Case
<<#>>
Version Number:
1.0
42
February 28,
2009
Title: Submit Application
Summary: This use case will allow the Users to download application forms and submit it
online.
Modification Date:
Version: 1.0
Actors: User, Copyright Personnel
Flow of Events:
Pre Conditions:
2. Users must be able to download the Application form from the site.

1. Users will download Application form from the system
2. Users will fill the Required Field from the Application Form
3. Users needs to upload the filled application form
4. Users needs to submit application to the system and pay the fees
5. The system will validate and send info to the system.
Post Conditions
1. Application couldn’t be downloaded.
5. Server’s down.
43
February 28,
2009
Activity Diagram of the Submit Reference Number:

Application (Referral) Use Case
<<#>>
Version Number:
1.0
44
February 28,
2009
Title: Check Application
Summary: Copyright Personnel should check Application online
Creation Date: February 28 2009
Modification Date:
Version: 1.0
Actors: Copyright Personnel
Flow of Events:
Pre Conditions:
1. Users must submit their application for the Copyright personnel to check
their application.

1. Copyright Personnel will check the documents
2. If valid the system will register document and generate confirmation
3. The copyright personnel will send confirmation to the users.
Post Conditions
1. Incomplete application filled by the user.
1. Copyright personnel didn’t check the application Properly.
45
February 28,
2009
Activity Diagram of the Check Reference Number:

Application (Referral) Use Case
<<#>>
Version Number:
1.0
46

Janine Ko CMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Janine Ko CMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTEMPORARY

Book review for IT-ETHIC

Title: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

“To defend one is not to defend the other”

Review: Chapter 1: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

What I have learned:

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism

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

No, He didn’t answer the question raised by Glaucon.

Title: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

Review: Chapter 1: John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

What I have learned:

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

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

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

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

Yes, Arthur refuted the divine command theory.

Title: Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

“Beyond good and Evil”

Review: Chapter 1: Friedrich Nietzsche : Master – and Slave- Morality

What I have learned:

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

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

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

4. Explain the Will to power.

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

Title: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

Review: Chapter 1: Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

What I have learned:

1. How does Midgley discus the Moral Isolationism?

1. What is “Moral isolationism”?

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

Title: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

Review: Chapter 1: John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

What I have learned:

1. How can one be happy?

3. How does 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.

Title: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Author: James E. White

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

Library Reference: N/A

Review: Chapter 1: James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

What I have learned:

1. What could make one person happy?

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions.

The problem of hedonism is that Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness.