Iggyvibal’s Weblog

Taking Rights Seriously

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Author: James E. White

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:

Learning Expectation:

I expect in this essay to learn more about rights, compared to the previous essay Taking rights seriously for me is more detailed. I mean I think in this essay the author will discuss its importance to people.

Review:

In this essay author Ronald Dworkin is university professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford University, and professor of law, New York. He is the author of A matter of Principle, Law’s Empire, A bill of Rights for Britain, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, Sovereign Virtue: The story and Practice of equality, and Taking Seriously.

Dorkwin’s view if people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. I guess this view of Dorkwin for me is good. I mean other people can’t interfere other’s work, nobody has the right to question one’s work.

According to Dorkwin, the concept of rights, and particularly the concept of rights against the Government, has its most  natural use when a society is divided, and appeals to co-operation or common goal are pointless.  This concept I think I also fair enough for the citizens, why? It is because not all government policies can recognize people’s rights, there are two distinct rights classified in the reading : Legal and Moral rights. Legal rights are rights arises from laws that government created, while Moral rights are rights of people that they think they must have. I mean for example the right of speech, everybody has the right to speak his/her mind but there governments think that there are some limitations, and they will take action against it. Generally whatever the message of those people trying to speak up is not valid reason for the government to take actions against it.

What I have learned:

I learned that rights are important to people, especially moral rights. Moral rights are rights that must be protected by the government, these rights depends on the person who owns it.
.

Integrative Questions:
Who is Ronald Dworkin?
What is a legal right?
What is a moral right?
Can government interfere a moral right?
Is it right to violate the government?

The Nature and Value of Rights: Joel Feinberg

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Author: James E. White

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:

Learning Expectation:

In this essay I expect to learn nature and value of rights. Well I’ve been hearing the word rights since grade school, I studied some concepts about it but I think there’s more than concepts of  rights and I want to learn that from this essay.

Review:

In this chapter the author talked about the nature and value of rights. Joel Feinberg a professor of philosophy at the university of Arizona, author of Doing and Deserving, Social Philosophy, the moral limits of criminal law, and lastly Freedom and Fulfillment. Feinberg wants to demonstrate that rights are morally important, by setting imaginations that in a certain place do not have rights as result people cannot make moral claims whenever they are treated unjustly.

According to Feinberg there is this doctrine called “ doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties”. This is the doctrine that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duty. For Feinberg he questions the first part of the doctrine because the word duty is associated with actions that are due someone else, payments of debts to creditors, the keeping agreements with promises, and more.  But there are many classes of duties, can be legal and non-legal kind, that are not logically correlated with the rights of other persons.  It is assumed that all duties are required actions of people which is logically true but not at all times. It doesn’t mean that a duty is always morally correct, there are some duties that are immoral. I agree with this, not all duties are morally correct there can be duties that are not morally correct, duties that can violate morality of other people. For example in Chinese beliefs that they are meant to be with Chinese people also but this doesn’t apply to all Chinese people this belief is some sort of a duty to their families. For me it is morally incorrect to marry somebody who I don’t love, marriage is for two persons who share same feelings. This is a duty for Chinese families to be done, but morally incorrect for me.

According to Feinberg to have a right is to have a claim against someone whose recognition is valid is called by some governing rules or moral principles. Feinberg means here that a right is like having a claim against someone, claiming that someone did something wrong to you if you’re right has been violated.  In the world that Feinberg created, the nowhereville people do not know how to claim rights either positively or negatively. This is now the problem, people seem to claim rights not in a right way, they should know how to claim it right. I mean how can people claim his/her rights if doesn’t know how will it be done, and what are the grounds of it.
Claim must be valid in a particular cultural, social, or legal context in order to be recognized as a right, or else void.

What I have learned:
.
In this essay I learned that a right is necessary when dealing with morality, I mean moral progress and human dignity. It’s a must that person knows his/her rights and knows when how and when to claim it as positive or negative right/ right or wrong.

Integrative Questions:
Who is Noel Feinberg?
What is Nowheresville?
How can you differentiate nowheresvill from our real world?
What is the doctrine of logical correlativity?
What is a right?

Happiness and Virtue: Aristotle

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Author: James E. White

Amazon Link:

Library Reference:

Quote:  ”Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking”

Learning Expectation:

In this essay is expect to learn Aristotle’s view on happiness and virtue, because I believe that I have different idea on happiness and virtue. What can be the assumptions of Aristotle while doing this? This is one of the questions that I want to be answered after this essay.

Review:

In this chapter the author talked about Happiness and Virtue, Aristotle the most famous philosopher of all time. He made important contributions to all areas of philosophy, including the formulation of traditional logic. Along with his teacher Plato, he is regarded as one of the founders of Western Philosophy.

In a general view of his concept, Aristotle argues that human being seek happiness and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth but an activity of the soul accordance with virtue.
There are two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between vices of excess and deficiency. While intellectual virtue produces the most perfect happiness is found in the activity of reason or contemplation.

According to Aristotle pleasure, honor, or wealth differs from one another,  and I think it is true. Well these three are really different and depends who that person is, what he/ thinks of it. People usually identify good or happiness with pleasure, which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment. This assumption of people is not true, well for me I agree with Aristotle that people usually identify good of happiness with pleasure. It is not right to identify good with pleasure, for good and pleasure differ from each other.  Good is the welfare of people, or a way doing something that can affect the welfare of others, while pleasure is a feeling of enjoyment. Technically it is not the same, and it can’t be happiness. I am to judge which of these two is classified as happiness, I will choose good. Why Good? Because whenever think of the welfare of other people or do something for the sake of other people’s welfare I can say that it makes me happy. Helping other people makes me happy, rather than choosing pleasure for myself.

What I have learned:

I learned that happiness is not about pleasure, honor or wealth but rather an activitiy according to what is right.  The concept of doing what is right makes the people happy, may be for some other people they are happy because of money and pleasure. That is extremely wrong. People in this world can’t define happiness as money, it make people more immoral.

Integrative Questions:
Who is Aristotle?
What are the types of virtue?
What do you mean by happiness?
Can people identify happiness with wealth, pleasure, or honor? Why or why not?
What is moral virtue?

The Categorical Imperative: Immanuel Kant

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Author: James E. White

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:  “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”

Learning Expectation:

In this essay I expect to learn the concept of categorical imperative. What does Immanuel Kant trying to prove here? What are his claims? Is this good for the people? These are just some of the questions that I have in mind, hopefully I could find out answers to my own questions at the end of this essay.

Review:

In this chapter the author talked about The Categorical Imperative, which is discussed by Immanuel Kant. He is a German was one of the most important philosophers of all time. He made significant contributions to all areas of philosophy. In this essay Kant will discuss two concepts and believes that these concepts can be made into one divine rule.

According to Kant he argued that intelligence, wit judgment, and any other talents of the mind that we can name or courage, resolution, constancy of purpose as qualities of temperament, are no doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when will is not good which has to make use of these gifts of nature, and which for this reason has the term “character” applied to its peculiar quality. I agree with Kant that whatever talents that a person possess and whatever talents that they showcase it is still not considered as completely good, they can still be bad if it will be use in bad ways.

Kant added that some qualities are helpful to good will and can make life easier, it also sets limit to the esteem in which they are rightly held and does not permit us to regard them as absolutely good. The moderation in affections and passions, self-control, and sober reflection are not only good in many aspects, they may constitute part of the inner worth of a person. Kant was trying to tell us that qualities are helpful to good will and can make life easier, I agree with him these qualities are positive qualities that can help us deal with different problems that a person can encounter anytime his/her life. There are also other qualities and actions which are not good to people, they are considered as bad which people must not possess or do.

Here’s what Kant thinks of Good will, it is not good of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone – that is the good in itself. It is true that what good will makes it good is the willing alone, the willing to do good things or outcome itself makes the good will good.

The next concept would be the duty, includes that of a good will, exposed to certain limitations and obstacles. It means that whatever duty a person has it should still include good will, for example a person that has a certain duty but basically his actions to fulfill his duty doesn’t include good will is considered wrong. It think the concept is good, even though a person has successfully fulfill his duty but in a wrong way then it is considered wrong or bad. For me if I did that I consider myself as a failure, because I didn’t do it in the right way. I should have done it in the right way rather than doing the other way.

These two concepts discussed on the first part brings us to the categorical imperative of Kant,  act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. I think I agree with this people should act  only on the truth that will bring good will and became a universal law. In short act only on truthfulness that will also result into good will. Nothing is bad about this, I believe that this is a good universal law. This will help people to do good on their entire stay here on earth, which in addition to this can help other people as well.

What I have learned:

I learned that categorical imperative consists of the two concepts discussed on the first part of this essay, Kant explained that duty consists good will. If duty is done in a wrong way it is not considered to be good.

Integrative Questions:
Who is Immanuel Kant?
What is the concept of good will?
What is the concept of duty?
Does concept of good will and duty come in hand?
What is the categorical imperative according to Kant?

Trying out One’s new Sword: Mary Midgley

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:

Learning Expectation:

Basically I really don’t know what this essay is all about, I can’t understand the title itself. I hope that after reading this essay I will learn what is this all about and the significance of this in my personal life.

Review:

The author of this essay is Mary Midgley, an English moral philosopher. She is known for her work on religion, science, ethics, and humankind’s relationship with animals. She also has some books namely: Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience, Animals and why they matter, Wickedness, and the Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom, and Morality.

In this essay the author discussed the main idea which is moral isolationism, the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize the cultures that we do no understand.
Basically the main topic of this essay is criticizing one’s culture, wherein Midgley argues that moral isolationism is wrong. Why? It’s because it forbids any moral reasoning, and she also considered this as immoralism. The argument here is that we cannot criticize one’s culture because we don’t know that culture.

For me personally it doesn’t mean that if I don’t a certain culture of other people I can’t criticize it. I mean everybody in this world can express his/her own opinion. Whether good or bad, it’s right to exercise the freedom of speech.

To explain this further here’s the given example on the book, in Japan they this old culture called tsujigiri. A samurai sword had to tried out to check it is working by slicing someone.
For me that’s not good but maybe for the Japanese people don’t see that as a bad tradition, probably it’s been a tradition for hundred of years ago and it could also mean something to their empire or emperor.

Criticizing is different from Judging. When we say Judging, it means forming an opinion, and expressing it. While Criticizing it is when you express your feelings on a certain thing by not concluding something.

It is also mentioned that cultures are not separated and unmixed, in fact a culture of a certain nation is made of different influences.

What I have learned:

I learned that moral isolationism is not good to people, they’re not using their right to express ideas. Ideas which won’t harm other people, these are ideas that came from our own personal opinion, from our own observations.

Integrative Questions:

Who is Mary Midgley?
Is moral isolationism moral?
What is the basis for criticizing?
What is the Japanese tradition discussed on the essay?
What is judging?

Review Questions:

What is moral isolationism?

It is the view of anthropologists that we cannot criticize culture that we do not know.

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

This is a custom in Japan wherein samurai had to be tried to know if it will work properly. To be more specific it must cut through someone. Questions are (1) does the isolating barrier work in both ways? (2)  are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us?

What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?

According to Midgley moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it forbids any moral reasoning.

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

According to Midgley the basis would be whenever people do not understand other people’s culture. I also think that would be the basis, for me I will not criticize something I fully understand it.

Discussion Questions:

I think yes for me it’s fair because it’s her opinion, that’s her idea of Nietzsche. Nobody can change it unless she proves it wrong.

Yes  I agree with her because I believe that one’s culture is made up of different influences. For example our culture here in Philippines we have this such culture because of our ancestors.

Master- and Slave Morality: Freidrich Nietzsche

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:

Learning Expectation:

Based on the title of the essay itself, Master and slave morality, I expect to learn that there is one person in this world who is in favor of slavery. Personally I don’t agree with slavery, I can’t see the reason behind it.

Review:

In this essay the author explains that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power. For this introductory part, I disagree with this why? I really can’t see the reason for slavery, why do they need to do this? For me it’s immoral, to enslave other people while you are relaxing and making fun of them.

The author argues that there are two fundamental types of morality : the slave morality and master morality. First the Master morality is about the strong-willed morality. For example the good is helpful, then the bad is the harmful. Well I agree with this type of morality for some reason it is obvious that the good is helpful and the bad is harmful.

Slave morality, this type mo morality holds the virtues : sympathy, kindness, and humility. This morality is for weak human beings. I think that the two can’t coexist, because the weak side seeks its own values.

What I have learned:

I learned that morality has two kinds, the slave morality and master morality. With the master morality at first I think that is really bad, but I was wrong it is the good and bad or in other words noble and despicable.

Integrative Questions:

Who is Friedrich Nietzsche?
What is Slave Morality?
What is Master Morality?
Is it right to express will to power?
What is the good and healthy society?

Review Questions:

How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

It’s all about allowing superior individuals to exercise their will to power.

What is Nietzche’s view of injury,violence, and exploitation?

He is against it, he doesn’t want any person to be harmed. He doesn’t want any people to be hurt.
Distinguish between master-morality and salve-morality

Master morality is the good and the bad, the master creates the value. While the slave morality seeks to impose its values.

Explain the will to power

According to the author the will to power is the will to life, without this society will not develop. And for sure people will dwell on their weaknesses more.
Master- and Slave Morality: Freidrich Nietzsche

Book Title: Contemporary Moral Problems
Seventh Edition

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235694270&sr=8-1

Library Reference:

Quote:

Learning Expectation:

Based on the title of the essay itself, Master and slave morality, I expect to learn that there is one person in this world who is in favor of slavery. Personally I don’t agree with slavery, I can’t see the reason behind it.

Review:

In this essay the author explains that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power. For this introductory part, I disagree with this why? I really can’t see the reason for slavery, why do they need to do this? For me it’s immoral, to enslave other people while you are relaxing and making fun of them.

The author argues that there are two fundamental types of morality : the slave morality and master morality. First the Master morality is about the strong-willed morality. For example the good is helpful, then the bad is the harmful. Well I agree with this type of morality for some reason it is obvious that the good is helpful and the bad is harmful.

Slave morality, this type mo morality holds the virtues : sympathy, kindness, and humility. This morality is for weak human beings. I think that the two can’t coexist, because the weak side seeks its own values.

What I have learned:

I learned that morality has two kinds, the slave morality and master morality. With the master morality at first I think that is really bad, but I was wrong it is the good and bad or in other words noble and despicable.

Integrative Questions:

Who is Friedrich Nietzsche?
What is Slave Morality?
What is Master Morality?
Is it right to express will to power?
What is the good and healthy society?

Review Questions:

How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

It’s all about allowing superior individuals to exercise their will to power.

What is Nietzche’s view of injury,violence, and exploitation?

He is against it, he doesn’t want any person to be harmed. He doesn’t want any people to be hurt.
Distinguish between master-morality and salve-morality

Master morality is the good and the bad, the master creates the value. While the slave morality seeks to impose its values.

Explain the will to power

According to the author the will to power is the will to life, without this society will not develop. And for sure people will dwell on their weaknesses more.