TABLE OF CONTENTS

James Rachels : Egoism and Moral Sceptism…………………………………………………………………..1

John Arthur : Religion Morality and Conscience……………………………………………………………….2

Friedrich Nietzsche : Master - and - Slave – Morality………………………………………………………….3

Mary Midgely : Trying out one's new world……………………………………………………………………4

John Stuart Mill : Utilitarianism ………………………………………………………………………………..5

James Rachels : The Debate over Utilitarianism………………………………………………..………………6

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative………………………………………………………………….7-8

Aristotle : Happiness And Virtue ……………………………………………………………………………..9-10

Joel Feinberg : The Nature and Value of Life………………………………………………………..….10-12

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously……………………………………………………………..…13

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice……………………………………………………….………………....14

.
Annette Baier: The Need For More Than Justice……………………………………….……………....15

James Rachels : Egoism and Moral Sceptism

What I Expect to learn :

I expect to learn the meaning of Egoism and Sceptism thou the idea is there and I want to enhance my knowledge in
knowing Egoism and Sceptism true meaning.

Review

The chapter mentioned that Egoism is a motivation that favorable views of oneself, Sceptism is loosely donate any
question attitude. Rachel differentiate Egoism and Sceptism's true meaning.

Rachel concludes that pychological Egoism holds all human actions are for self-interest people do only act which
boost their desire that would motivate them with their own will. It also shows the result of becoming selfishness that
will act the situational circumstances.

Sceptism that is mentioned in the chapter is said to be a conjectures that is we never to give up an assertion.
Everyone has the right to choose in approach in accepting, rejecting or suspecting judgement on new information
that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.

This chapter shows how the ego of an individual work and because of that ego, it takes conroll of a person's
capability to contibute to society properlly it takes away the functionallity of an individual in society People are not
always the same or the people you think that they are, you may never know what is going on in their minds. for them
they do not have an obligation on anything but only to their interest, to only things that will benefit them.

Egoism has two views, the psychological egoism 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.
Ethical Egoism is, by contrast, a normative view about how men ought to act. It is the view that, regardless of how
men do in fact behave, they have no obligation to do anything except what it is in their own interests.
This chapter explains that it is up to the person whether he would do something just for his self-interest or for the
benefit of the majority or the many.

What I have learned

I learned further the meaning of Egoism and Sceptism they are different because I was expecting that they have the
same meaning before reading the chapter.

Integrative Questions

1.) What is the other meaning of Egoism.

2.) What is the other meaning of Sceptism.

3.) What is conjectures.

4.) Can judgment an information of new arguement?

5.) What is Boosting your desire?

John Arthur : Religion Morality and Conscience

What I Expect To Learn :

The similarities and difference of Religion, Morality and Conscience

Review :

In the chapter of John Arthur, Religion is created by God in the world so this means that we have to abide the 10
commandments these are the laws that we should follow, however religion is debatable subject that needed in moral
life. Religion has an impact in our morality which will motivate us to do our own will. Morality is a code of conduct
that distinguishing the right and wrong behavior moral is subjectively created by philosophy. The arbitariness of
morality stems from the observation that actions maybe deemed moral in one's culture so this means that if morality
is important in Religion because morality can lead us to have a better believes that we christians are following in the
10 commandments.
First, religion is necessary for providing motivation for morality; note ‘often said’ by whom? Buddhist motivation
is quite different]; reply (obvious): there can be other motivations for acting morally (e.g. we can be concerned
about other people judging us, instead of God); so religion is not necessary for motivationsecond: religion is
necessary for guidance in what is right and wrong reply: how do we know what revelation means? it is often
contradictory in its guidance, saying one thing at one place and another at another place ("eye for an eye" versus
"thou shalt not kill"); so religion does not provide straightforward guidance - it needs to be interpreted; but in order
to interpret it we may bring moral beliefs to bear; he means someone may go with ‘thou shalt not kill’ because of
their pacifism, Q: is this an adequate argument? someone could argue, for example, that guidance does not mean
unambiguous telling what to do; if it did, then it would take away from our freedom; at the end it is up to each
individual how to act; otherwise how would they be responsible for their actions? so ambiguity of guidance is not a
good reason to reject necessity since guidance be ambiguous no matter where it comes from; further, it could also be
argued that only divine revelation could reveal all the alternatives, or something like that; so then religion would be
necessary...
It was mentioned that "It is learned from interactions with others and governs interactions with other in society. God
might play a role in moral reflection and conscience. For the religous person, conscience would would almost
certainly include the imagined reaction of God along with the reactions of others who might be affected by the
action. So this means that every wrong doings that you interact with others God is watching us and it depends in you
if you have your conscience to continue it or not. Maybe in other people they did not see what you have done you
might be fortunate to escape justice but if you're really a descendat of God, your conscience will bother you.

What I have learned :

I learned that from reading the story the importance of God, and also it reminds me to have conscience be back.
Also religion affects morality without morality man cannot do his/her own will.

Integrative questions :

1.) What it the importance of Morality in Religion?

2.) How can you apply Morality in your life?
3.) What is Conscience?
4.) Why conscience sometimes disobeyed?
5.) How come we have different religion?

Friedrich Nietzsche : Master - and - Slave - Morality

What I Expect to learn :

I expect how can a slave have it's morality being taken by it's Master?

Review :
 "Essential thing in a good and healthy aristocracy is that is should not regard itself as a function either of the
kingship or the commonwealth but as the significance and the highest justification that it should accept with good
conscience" , as mentioned in the chapter , your highest justification should accept with good conscience, being a
slave, you should know the consequence of being a prisoner, some people treat them as a Animal, their conscience
cannot bother them because they have the other side of morality, people that are being slave for many years just like
in the movie you can tell that they are being used for others own will and not to their own will. But some that are
serving for their good will like having a job to work it's the other thing of Slavery that we should follow we do have
our free will to talk and to justify if they are treating or over-doing it. Being slave we work for our family so that we
can support them this is the good side of being slave and having your Morality it can guide you to have a better
believes for you Master.

“Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena, more precisely a misinterpretation.” (33,1) Friedrich
Nietzche’s Twilight of the Idols is a ‘radical’ perspective that evaluates the European conception of morality. His
affirmation of the ‘will to life’ and natural instincts directly contradicts the accepted beliefs of what man has created
to be right or wrong ( the idols) by the open denial of what comes easy and natural. On many accounts this line of
thinking proves logical and an in-depth look reveals the truths about the way man should reconsider today’s
accepted definition of morality.

A good question asks: why would morality, or simply restraints on desired actions, naturally evolve if it is inhibiting
what is natural? Nietzche answers this by saying that man searches to give nearly everything responsibility or a
name for motivation. “Where ever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct for wanting to punish and
judge that is doing the searching.” (31,7) Evolutionary psychology supports man’s evolved desire to judge in order
to compare one’s own actions in order to maximize fitness benefits.(EP) This is likely the logical

What I have learned :

I learned the healthy aristocary that we should not regard to itself.

Integrative Questions :

1.) What is Healthy Aristocary?

2.) How can good conscience lead you to have a peace of mind?

3.) What is the relationship of Slave and Morality?

4.) What are the types of Masters?

5.) Can a Slave have it's own will to justify?

Mary Midgely : Trying out one's new world

What I Expect to learn :

I expect to learn how do people of other culture can understand and appreciate other's culture.

Review :

Mary Midgely mentioned that there is a contradiction between the claim that we cannot understand some of these
cultures and we should respect it. We also have to understand that some other culture well enough to make their own
Judgment for instance the law is not required they can make thei Judgment in a matter of time and we think that it is
not fair it's not our culture and we should have our knowledge to think that some of these people are other and they
have different God. But somehow we can understand people in other cultures we should make our mind understand
and not being a Judgemental person.

Ethical relativism is the consequence of accepting the claim that "We cannot judge others" it is more radical
paralysis that we cannot judge. The power of moral judgment is, not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteious. It
is a necessity. When we Judge something we are taking it as an example to aim at or to avoid it.

It is said that Japanese test thei Samurai swords in the old times and it seems brutal to other culture, because the first
thing that comes up with their minds is that it can harm other people and it is very deadly.

In this chapter, Mary Midgely was also able to explain that the people who take up this idea of moral isolationism
think that it is being respectful to other cultures and societies. “Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to
them.” (Midgely) She disagreed to that kind of notion people are thinking. According to her, “to respect someone,
we have to know enough about him to make a favorable judgment, however general and tentative. And we do not
understand people in other cultures to this extent. Otherwise a great mass of our most valuable thinking would be
paralyzed” (Midgley).

Mary Midgley was able to illustrate her arguments in this chapter. First, she argued that “there is a contradiction
between the claim that we cannot understand these rules, and the claim we must respect them.”(Midgely) This only
means that we, ourselves, can understand people in other cultures. In the following paragraphs, Midgely was able to
illustrate some relevant examples to explain the importance of analyzing other culture’s morals in order to form
educated judgments about them. She gives an example of ancient Chinese samurai warriors whom before going off
to battle would test the sharpness of their swords on innocent strangers. (Midgely)

What I have learned :

I learned that we should not judge other cultures just by looking them outside.

Integrative Questions :

1.) What is Ethical relativism?

2.) What are the other cultures in the Southern Asia?

3.) How do you judge people by just looking at him/her?

4.) What is required in judging people without affecting them?

5.) Whati is Isolationism?

John Stuart Mill : Utilitarianism

What I expect to learn :

I expect to learn what is the meaning of Utilitarianism in John Stuart Mill story

Review : The Story of Utilitarianism that John Stuart Mill discussed is that Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides
with "natural" sentiments that originate from human's social nature. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and
quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser
pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtous living, should be
counted as part of their happiness.The theory of utilitarianism has been critized for many reasons. According to John
Stuart "The Principle of Utilit does not mean that any given pleasure, as music or any given exemption from pain as
for example health, it to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed. Mill's argument comprises the
chapters. His first chapter serves as an introduction to the essay. In his second chapter, Mill discusses the definiton
of utilitarianism, and presents some misconceptions about the theory. The third chapter is a discussion about the
ultimate scantions that Utilitarianism can offer.The fourth chapter discusses methods of proving the validity of
utilitarianism. In his fith chapter, Mill writes about the connection between justice and utility , and argues that
happines is the foundation of justice.

What I have learned :

I learned that Utilitarianism presents misconceptions about the theory of Utilitarianism.

Interogative Questions :

1.) What is the essence of Critizing someone without thinking?.

2.) How does happiness affects your social nature?

3.) What is Utilitarianims?

4.) What can foundation of justice affect your happiness?

5.) What is the sanctions of Utilitarianism?

James Rachels : The Debate over Utilitarianism

What I expect to learn :

I expect how two people debate Utilitirianism.

Review :

Right actions produce good, and that well is one thing only happiness.The author mentioned that considerations in
your mind makes relevant priorr to your subjected act. It is taken by a reason without hesitations to exclude the
adequately moral perspective.Happiness is not seeking for something that should not only be considered.Smart is
right in his line of defense against the utilitarianism the utilitarianism should be considered also The classical
utilitarianism is defined by first actions are judge soley in virtue of their consequences, that right actions have the
best consequenses. The improtance of nuances would not be difficult in some aspects if you will do respects the
individual privacy. It will consider the things which are good by themselves but if ony ig the night actions would
they done. Eventually actions are complying to be defensible if they know what the consequences they do the others
are. No one's happines is to be counted as more improtant than anyone else, independently. and in their own right.
When looking for a friend we don't consider that friends make us happy, but rather we are actually seeking for
happiness and that having friends is the key to our happiness. Taking into consideration on your past actions that
you have done is also improtant in making up for your future.

Third proposition is calculating the happiness and unhappiness that we felt after our action. Justice, rights, and
promises are being done because they don’t want to have scandals and riots. In short justice, rights, and promises are
done to have peace and order in the society. The act utilitarian considers the consequences of the act while the rule
utilitarian considers the consequences that result of a rule of conduct. Utilitarianism reply to the objections by
analysing first the problem, then judge whether that action is right or not before thinking the consequence to the
action made.The third line of defense is about finding and feeling ways that we learn form our surrounding.
Nonhuman animals are just the same as we but in a lower manner of thinking. Yes, animals don’t speak but they can
feel too just like us and that is enough to give them the treatment that we get.

What I have learned :

I learned that Happiness is not seeking for something that should not only be considered by anything.

Integrative questions :

1.) What is Debate over Utilitarianism.

2.) How do you assess the action of consequences

3.) What will you get after knowing your consequences.

4.) What is Act-Utilitarianism.

5.) What is Independenlt debate Utilitarianism

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

What I expect to learn :

I expect what is maintaning one's moral goodness.

Review :

Immanuel Kant imperative discussed and illustrated the meaning of the rules of many problems towards people.
Kant said that God can extremely hurt people. There are some qualities that can be really helpful and can make the
work easier. His philosophy of good will is close in being a good person or a person of good will. There is no
implied limit or qualification of in giving moral considerations that will take affect to the determination to give
moral support for others.

It is said that the hypotetical imperatives talks about what you did before.Pleasure and intelligence has also
something to do with good will because it does not require giving up in on every person's moral certainties. Kant
expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass
the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitatian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for
the greates number of people, but this is irrelevant to someone who is concerned only with maximizing the positive
outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be
regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they based rely too heavily
on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of categorical
imperative, as an alternative.

Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any
circumstance. In Grounding, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to
pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he
knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in
conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of
language. If it is universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to
be lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an
end in himself. And the theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the
right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.

Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation
of perfect duty interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing victim,
it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no person can consent to
theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft. Because the victim could not
have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty.

Kant also applies the categorical imperative in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals on the subject of "failing to
cultivate one's talents." He proposes a man who if he cultivated his talents could bring many goods, but he has
everything he wants and would prefer to enjoy the pleasures of life instead. The man asks himself how the
universality of such a thing works. While Kant agrees that a society could subsist if everyone did nothing, he notes
that the man would have no pleasures to enjoy, for if everyone let their talents go to waste, there would be no one to
create luxuries that created this theoretical situation in the first place. Not only that, but cultivating one's talents is a
duty to oneself. Thus, it is not willed to make laziness universal, and a rational being has imperfect duty to cultivate
its talents. Kant concludes in Grounding:

What I have learned:

I have learned that pleasure and intelligence has also something to do with good will.

Integrative questions :

1.) What is an account of good will?

2.) What is categorical imperative?

3.) What is popular philosophy

4.) What is hypotetical imperatives ?

5.) Who is Emmanuel Kant?

Aristotle : Happiness And Virtue

What I expect to learn :

I expect How Aristotle explain Virtue and Happiness well.

Review :

Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical sciences. Its methodology must its
subject matter - good action and must respect the fact that in this field many generalizations hold only for the most
part. We study ethics in order to improve our lives , and therefore its principal concern is the nature of human well-
being. Happiness and virtue are the topic which he chose. Happiness is something that cannot be found in pleasure.
Virtue is something that you earned from hard-work or intense training.

What we need, in order to live well, isa a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship,
pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular
cases, we must acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of
action is best supported by reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, as he conceives it, cannot be acquired soley bu
learning general rules. We must also acquire, through practice., thoser deliberatice, emotional, and social skills that
enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into practice in ways that are suitable to each occasion.

Every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite
regress of merely goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. This end of
human life could be called happiness, of course, but what is it really? Neither the ordinary notions of pleasure,
wealth, and honor nor the philosophical theory of forms provide an adequate account of this ultimate goal, since
even individuals who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy.
According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they are properly used to perform.
The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and
this must be an activity of the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence. Thus, human beings should aim at a
life in full conformity with their rational natures; for this, the satisfaction of desires and the acquisition of material
goods are less important than the achievement of virtue. A happy person will exhibit a personality appropriately
balanced between reasons and desires, with moderation characterizing all. In this sense, at least, "virtue is its own
reward." True happiness can therefore be attained only through the cultivation of the virtues that make a human life
complete.
Notice that the application of this theory of virtue requires a great deal of flexibility: friendliness is closer to its
excess than to its deficiency, while few human beings are naturally inclined to undervalue pleasure, so it is not
unusual to overlook or ignore one of the extremes in each of these instances and simply to regard the virtue as the
opposite of the other vice.
Although the analysis may be complicated or awkward in some instances, the general plan of Aristotle's ethical
doctrine is clear: avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all things. Not bad advice, surely. Some version
of this general approach dominated Western culture for many centuries.
What I have learned :

I learned that we should study ethics in order to improve our lives.

Integrative questions :

1.) What is happiness according to Aristotle?

2.) What conceives of ethical theory?

3.) What is Happiness of Virtue?

4.) What is good as friendship pleasure?

5.) How does Aristotle explain moral values?

Joel Feinberg : The Nature and Value of Life

What I expect to learn :

I expect that I can value the Nature of life of others.

Review :
The emerging discourse concerning the desirability of intervention in senescence to achieve radical life extension for
persons has featured some striking blurring in traditional liberal and conservative commitments and positions. This
affords an opportunity for re-evaluation of these same. The canonical conservative view of the intrinsic value of life
is re-examined and found primarily to involve a denial of human prerogative, rather than an active underwriting of
the value of life extension. A critique is offered of an attempted argument against aging intervention from a proto-
conservative worry about a purported threat to human nature. Immortality is found to be a red herring, but a
revealing one. Further, the classic liberal view is examined and found wanting in terms of the gravity of its own
commitment to, and fullness of its account of the value of life, and the value of life extension. An analysis of the
liberal conception of personhood is proposed that both defines persons necessarily as processes, and demonstrates
the inalienable quality of the value of life extension to persons so defined.
One prominent candidate for the portentous task of articulating the moral bonds between the generations, is the
notion that our effects upon the remote future are ethically constrained by the rights-claims of our posterity upon us,
and consequently by the burdens of moral duty entailed by these rights. The numerous objections to this approach
have led many philosophers to seek other justifications for such constraints, such as unreciprocated duties to the
future, utility calculations, and so forth. Some have even claimed that future persons have no claims whatever upon
our resources. These objections to the "rights approach" have been based upon a few allegedly "essential"
differences between actual persons and future persons -- most prominently, their. Despite all these objections, I will
argue that members of future generations have rights-claims upon us, now -- albeit, some of the rights-claims that
obtain among contemporaries, do not apply across non-concurrent generations.
Though fewer rights might obtain across generation than within them, I will further argue that the rights that remain
may nonetheless be stringent. The duties that we have to our successors may be more than merely praiseworthy
"duties of beneficence." Rather, some of these duties are, in Kantian terms, "perfect duties," morally required now,
due to the rights of future persons.
Thus a line may be drawn to include, but to exclude nature. Beings "within," may thus said to "have rights" by virtue
of their "interests" in (perhaps) being benefited or (more fundamentally) in not being harmed. These "interests"
entail upon those in a position to thus affect the rights-bearers.
My exclusive focus of concern, however, will be with -- beings of which the word "sentience" denotes the simplest
pre-requisite of moral significance. "Human rights" (more correctly, "personal rights"), are grounded in the
remarkable cluster of capacities, and consequent interests, which designate "personhood" -- i.e., use of an articulate
language, self-concept and self-consciousness, time perspective, hypothetical (practical) thinking, abstract reflection,
responsiveness to moral principles, etc. -- in short, what philosophers have come to call "moral agency."
Accordingly, by "moral rights" I shall mean valid claims made either directly or by proxy against particular persons,
groups, and institutions, or indefinite individuals, or even "the world in general." These claims announce to others
that obligations and duties to the rights-holders are to be honored and that their liberties and opportunities are not to
be curtailed. Furthermore, I would endorse H. L. A. Hart's principle that "to have a [moral] right entails having a
moral justification for limiting the freedom of another person and for determining how he should act."
Parenthetically, this limitation of the freedom of the other constitutes his duty to the right-bearer. Rights, in short,
entail duties on the part of others.

What I have learned :

I learned that the opportunity for re-evaluation can be found primarily to involve denial.

Interogative Questions

1.) What is Value of Life

2.) What is Nature
3.) What is Claim-Rights
4.) What is value of rights
5.) What is emerging discourse
Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

What I expect to learn :

I expecto how Ronald Dworkin express the rights seriously when the situation is not serious

Review :

What is law? What is it for? How should judges decide novel cases when the statutes and earlier decisions provide
no clear answer? Do judges make up new law in such cases, or is there some higher law in which they discover the
correct answer? Must everyone always obey the law? If not, when is a citizen morally free to disobey?
A renowned philosopher enters the debate surrounding these questions. Clearly and forcefully, Ronald Dworkin
argues against the "ruling" theory in Anglo-American law-legal positivism and economic utilitarianism and asserts
that individuals have legal rights beyond those explicitly laid down and that they have political and moral rights
against the state that are prior to the welfare of the majority.
Mr. Dworkin criticizes in detail the legal positivists' theory of legal rights, particularly H. L. A. Hart's well-known
version of it. He then develops a new theory of adjudication, and applies it to the central and politically important
issue of cases in which the Supreme Court interprets and applies the Constitution. Through an analysis of Rawls's
theory of justice, he argues that fundamental among political rights is the right of each individual to the equal
respect and concern of those who govern him. He offers a theory of compliance with the law designed not simply to
answer theoretical questions about civil disobedience, but to function as a guide for citizens and officials. Finally,
Professor Dworkin considers the right to liberty, often thought to rival and even pre-empt the fundamental right to
equality. He argues that distinct individual liberties do exist, but that they derive, not from some abstract right to
liberty as such, but from the right to equal concern and respect itself. He thus denies that liberty and equality are
conflicting ideals.

What I have learned :

I learned that Dworkin critisizes in detail the legal positivists' theory of legal rights.

Interogative Questions :

1.) What is law?

2.) What is it for?
3.) How should judges decide novel cases when the statues and earlier decions provied?
4.) Do judges make up new law?
5.) What is detailed rights?

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

What I expect to learn :

I expect what is the meaning of Theory of Justice

Review :

Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls' social contract takes a slightly
different view from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice
through the use of an entirely and deliberately artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone
decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all
facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed."no one knows his place in society, his
class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his
intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or
their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an
individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any
one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those
in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the position of the least well-off.
They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an
initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association
It is important to keep in mind that the agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and
ahistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain
legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. In other words, Rawls seeks to persuade us through
argument that the principles of justice that he derives are in fact what we would agree upon if we were in the
hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is
ahistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever, or indeed could actually be entered into as
a matter of fact.

Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the
assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society.The
difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off
members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the
original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods.
Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are
taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution?
Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.

What I have learned :

I learned that it is important to keep in mind the agreement that stems from original position

Interogative Questions :

1.) What is theory of justice?

2.) What is original position?
3.) What is the difference of principle permits?
4.) What is the permits inequalities?
5.) What is society equal claim?

Annette Baier: The Need For More Than Justice

What I expect to learn :

I expect to learn the Need of others to justice.

Review :

In this chapter, Annette Baier, teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, noted some of here insights
about the perspective of Giligan during her studies on the moral development of woman. She also distinguished
other concepts coming from other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Rawls.

According to her, “justice and care should be harmonized with each other. Harmonization between the two would
form something that will take care of people even when they do something to other people. The harmonization of
justice and care is the same as the harmonization of man and woman. The cooperation of the two will form
something that will be beneficial for the both parties.” The bonding of both characteristics would produce a chance
where manly ethics and knowledge can be shared to womanly ethics and knowledge which in time will produce an
outcome that will benefit a lot of people.”

The author disagreed to some ideologies she thinks not applicable and not helpful for human beings. Justice, I
believe, is something to be done according to the betterment of the community. Justice will only prevail as long as
people meet up in a common good. Justice is something everyone should earn and strive for. It isn’t just something
we beg from others, it is something we work really hard. Persevering in doing our commitments to stay justice in
line is important.

Learning to care for justice is essential for each person. Just by simply caring for one another, it only shows how
people are valued by anybody. “Caring for others is something that comes from virtue or morality in life. People
who grew up with someone who care for them tends to gain this characteristic and share it to others.”

Care with justice is just saying that even though a person committed something that is unacceptable for the society,
it doesn’t mean that the person who committed the act should be treated like trash or waste. Proper care should still
be present because that person who committed the act still has the right to be human.

What I have learned :

I learned that care with justice is saying that even though a person committed something that is unacceptable.

Integrative question :

1.)What is Need for more than justice?

2.)What is justice?
3.)What is caring for others ?
4.)What is something everyone?
5.)What is Persevering?