Wufoo Excer

sir ito po link ko http://tklc.site90.com/Wufoo/

Excer for March 3

http://tklc.site90.com/city/
Sir this is the link of the exer last meeting sir I was unable to create the about page and gravatar in my wordpress in site90 because for some reason there is a database error that I could not fix so I just placed a gravatar in this wordpress

Contemporary Moral Problems: The Need for More Than Justice by Annette Baier

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Need for More Than Justice by Annette Baier
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“What we need now is a marriage of the old male and a newly articulated female insights.” – Annette C. Baier

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn the difference of the old patriarchal ways of morality vs. the new maternal way of doing things.

Review:
Based on what I’ve read from this essay is that the author is merely talking about the differences of society in the past and in the present. She is showing how the old patriarchal Society has laid one abuse after another to humanity. And how the new society of Maternalized men are causing more harm than good. This was achieved by the emasculating the men to become more acceptable to the women. When this should not be the case. Women will always be women and men will always be men. To try to create a fusion between these two would be impossible. The cost based on point of view alone and behavior is vastly different to which no clear-cut factor in this emerging. And so somehow you notice that some of the strengths of the men are the weaknesses of the women. And some of the strengths of the women are the week this is of the men. My only problem with this essay is that she keeps trying to debunk psychological theories with vast literature and evidence to which she is merely speculating again with the lack of evidence.

What I learned:
What I have learned is that this and you age, for humanity that we should now learn to create the marriage between the old ways and a new ways.

Review Questions:
1. Distinguish between the justice in here perspectives. According to Gilligan, how did these perspectives develop?
According to them that this values most easily perceived by women.

2. Explain Kholberg’s Theory of moral development. What criticisms did Gilligan and Baier make of this theory?
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development are planes of moral adequacy conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. That his questionnaires were inconsistent when used on females as compared to Males. The females on the overall received a lower score.

3. Baer says that there are three important differences between the Kantian liberals and their critics what are these differences?
The first is of dubious record the second was inattention to relations of inequality or its presence of equality and the third is exaggeration of the school of choice.

4. Why does Baier attack the Kantian and view that the reason should control unruly passions?
The cost they also tend to seem less useful when we are led to consider what sort of person we need to fill the role of parent or indeed wanted any close relationship.

Discussion Questions:
1. One was baier mean which he speaks often need to Trans value the values of our patriarchal past? The new values replace the old ones? If so, when do we abandon the old values of justice freedom and rights?
Actually we do not abandon the old values but rather we use often than from the hard patriarchal version to a softer version with the help of the maternal values of the modern day. In order to create a balance.
2. What’s 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?
Not all women are irrational so I guess there should be a test before deciding of the person should make decisions and there are some men that are actually very irrational as well so best be fair.

3. Baier seems to reject the Kantian emphasis on freedom of choice granted we do not choose our parents, we still don’t have the freedom of choice about many things, and isn’t this very important?
Yes it is very important because it helps promote autonomy me the child.

Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“Justices fairness it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in the initial situation that is fair the name does not mean the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and in more than the phrase poetry as a metaphor means that the concepts of fortune metaphor or the same.” – John Rawls

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn the theories behind society’s ideals justice.

Review:
The whole concept that justice and is based on the principles which are chosen behind the veil of ignorance. Ensuring that not one person has an advantage or disadvantage in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance for by the contingency of social circumstances. Thus in the end the whole idea of justice revolves around society itself the norms and values Etc. With this realization and therefore conclude that it is impossible to achieve true justice in the living world. Because there’s no such thing as absolute justice. We’re always just speculating on different points of view dulled by the differences in race and culture. And in the end it is just merely the thoughts of man.

What I learned:

What can learn in his essay is that there are two principles of justice. When that justice is all about liberty and that there is equal opportunity and rights for all.

Review Questions:
1. Careful explain Rawls conception of the original position.
The original position states that persons who view themselves as equals entitled to press their claims up on one another would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of a greater some of advantages enjoyed by others.

2. State and explain Rawls first principle of justice.
The first principles states that each person is to have an equal right to the most expensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberties for others. It just means that there should be equal liberties between citizens of this country. It is the basic concept of equality.

3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?
The second principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. This simply says that social and economic inequality ease are a byproduct of people’s responsibility within the society and nothing more.

Discussion Questions:
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 on all 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?
Base in the first principle yes they would be allowed.
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 would they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why would a bid that socialism rather than capitalism? If in socialism jazz as rational as capitalism?

Yes people would actually consider it that way and socialism for all it’s worth the seem to be the more logical choice because it fosters complete and utter equality among whole citizens. But you see these as the logical and unrealistic because this is not a perfect world. Given the fact of the world’s imperfect all these ideals would never come to pass. No matter how we want equality we can never have it in this world because not a single person is born equal.

Contemporary Moral Problems: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronal Dworkin

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronal Dworkin
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“Does the Dornan to respect the moral and political rights of its citizens? Or does its foreign policy, or it’s a race policy, flying the face of these rights?” – Ronald Dworkin

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learnthe seriousness and extent of the report cautions of human rights in the United States. I expect to find out if the constitution really protects its people.

Review:
In his essay Ronald Dworkin talks about the different rights of citizens. Now I believe that some citizens have rights but it says here that some lawyers just merely believe that the only rights human beings have heard the once stated by the law And nothing more . To be very honest is going to be very very difficult to sum up whole human rights within the pages of human law. Since we have so many aspects of the human being that we need to take into consideration. Remember to the human beings not just revolve around physiological needs but also rights on safety, security, psychology, and spirituality. If we look into modern events we will know that though the United States constantly clamors for human rights. You know for fact that their policies in itself has cost people in the Middle East to suffer human rights violations. Hence the hostility of the Arab nations towards the Americans. So I believe this essay would need some more looking into because in lots of ways is still very confusing in the way the whole concept goes in circles.

What I learned:
I have learned that the rights are very important in the maintenance of modern society. And that all its functions, its politicians, civilians and military all revolve around these written laws which in turn grant it’s evidence their rights. Which is why we should take these rights seriously. The only problem is that nothing is ever black and white. From my readings of this essay that has occurred to me that these rights can be very easily manipulated because of circumstances an extremely good lawyers And at the very strength of a civilization is reflected in its malls and then writes that it gives its people, For their own protection and in betterment of their lives.

Review Questions:
1. What does Dworkin mean by the right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the U.S. constitution
Dworking said that people should not interfere with other people’s rights so for example people someone the son of a catholic family wants to be a Muslim then the parents should not interfere with his right to choose his religion

2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.
Moral rights are rights that are not part of law but sometimes the law actually absorbs the moral rights. This right depends on the belief of the individual.

3. What are the two models of how a gov’t might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?
The first model talks about the balancing the rights of the individual and the demand of the society. The second model talks about political equality.

4. According to Dworkin, what to important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
Rights must be require an act of faith as part of the minority and the government will establish respect of the law.

Discussion Questions:
1. As a person have a right to break the law? Why or why not
No he does not, because by doing so he will trample the rights of all others.

2. Our rights in the strong since compatible with mills utilitarianism?
No it is not, because utilitarianism has principles that would violate the rights of others and alter the prerogative for duties.

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

Contemporary Moral Problems: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Nature and Value of Rights by Joel Feinberg
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“A master or lord was under no obligation to reward his servant for especially good service; still a master might naturally feel that there would be a special fittingness in giving a gratuitous reward is a grateful response to the good service (or conversely imposing the penalty for bad service). Such an act will surely fitting and proper was entirely supererogatory. The fed the response in turn from the rewarded servant should be gratitude. If the deserved the award had not been given to him you should have had no complaint, since he only deserved the reward, as opposed to having the right to it, or a ground for claiming it as his due.” – John Feidberg

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn the difference between rights and duty. And the value of each in society.

Review:
This chapter mainly talks about the nature and value of rights. If it differentiates to us that rights and duties are completely different. What we should remember is that we should focus on our duties rather than judging the duties of others toward us, Because we as a people have a tendency to overrate our rights and neglect our duties. This chapter also talks about the employer and employee contract and the basic dynamics of how it works. Interestingly enough that it tackles the basic concepts of society and the contracted duties of the employer and employee. That leads me to understand the differences between charitable duties and the duties of the employers and what is due to the employee. Though from my analysis a lot of the principals behind the contract still lack in just compensations and fails to promote reasons for the employee to excel over the initial agreement. And so I think did this point of view is flawed and can still be improved upon.

What I learned:
I have learned that duties are very different from rights. And that the value of duties and rights varies from each situation. I have also learned that many of what people expect their rights to be are mere charitable contributions that all others give from the kindness of their heart. Thus proving that modernization and materialism has corrupted the way we value our rights. That the rights we deem that we deserve we actually do not. Showing a lack of humility amongst the modern population. I’ve also learned that modern day society is one sided in their view of rights and negligent in their view of their duties.

Review Questions:
1. Described nowheresville. How is this world different from our world?
Nowheresville is a perfect world as described by the author where the citizens act purely on the premise of beneficence. Where human beings are is attractive and virtuous as possible without taxing our conception of the minutes of human nature. Here the virtues of moral sensibility flourish.

2. Explain the doctrine of logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?
This is the doctrine that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties. Feinberg’s position and logical correlativity is both yes and no. He believes that the first part is relatively true by the second part is false because he does not believe that all rights and the other people’s duties.

3. How does Fienberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville?
He explained that concept of the desert by explaining the origin of the idea of the serving good or bad treatment from others. A master our lord was under no obligation to reward his servant for a specially grown service; still a master might not really feel that there would be special fittingness in giving a gratuitous reward as a grateful response for good service and that the fitting response in turn from the rewarded servant should be gratitude. If the deserved reward had not been given him he should have had no complaint, since he only deserved the reward, as opposed to having a right to it, or a ground for claiming it as his due.

In Nowheresville, you will have only the original week kind of desert. They will never complained and will be grateful.

4. Explain the notion of sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg?
His notion of sovereign right monopoly is based on the leviathan where people had no rights whatsoever against are sovereign. In Nowheresville this will become a a place where people have no rights.

5. What are claim rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?
Claim rights are rights that logically entail all other people’s duties. It is morally important because it helps us delineate exactly what their rights are vs. our duties. So that we do not expect more from others than what is really needed.

Discussion Questions:
1. Thus Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?
Actually know he didn’t it is mainly because he was not very clear with what he was talking about he jabbers on and on and on about a make believe world based on speculation with no hard evidence. Which makes his point of view clearly important to himself and only himself.

2. Can you give in non circular definition of claim right?
No you can’t because basically the whole concept is circular.

Contemporary Moral Problems: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Happiness and Virtue by Aristotle
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“All humans seek happiness, and that happiness is not to pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” – Aristotle

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about Aristotle’s philosophy unhappiness and virtue. I have always found the Greeks perspective on life and philosophy is interesting since they are the basis to which modern day civilization was formed.

Review:
This chapter has a very interesting discussion on happen is in virtue and how Aristotle finds a balance between the two. He argues that all human beings see happen is and that happen is he’s not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. And that virtue is of two kinds: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between devices of excess and efficiency. This view of Aristotle it’s found universally in different areas of philosophy especially Taoism it is also the very base of life as we are taught in wellness and the medical profession as homeostasis. That virtue if brought too far would no longer be virtue but a hindrance. And the lack of virtue would be seen as a vice. As Aristotle stated the virtue of courage as a man between extremes of brashness and cowardice. For him the most perfect happiness is that of intellectual virtue is found in the activity of reason for contemplation which is a virtue that seems to be lacking in our generation. We no longer seek wisdom but instead scurry to mass media for the answers to life’s questions. Maybe this should be a wakeup call for this generation to search for wisdom to ancient texts.

What I learned:
I have learned that there’s much to learn from ancient texts and that excess is never a good thing neither is deficiency. That team was always stay within certain boundaries of balance for us to be a virtuous. And that there are many forms of happiness more than what the materialism of society dictates to us.

Review Questions:
1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
Happiness according to Aristotle would depend on the person’s nature. That a virtuous person would seek happiness in virtue. Pleasure on the other hand is part of the more basic drives of humanity from which happiness in its most basic form can be derived from.

2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples?
Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of factor that is a mean between vices of excess and efficiency an example is that the virtu of courage is a mean between the extremes of rashness(excess) and cowardice(deficiency).

3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not who cannot be happy?
Yes they can because happiness is equals to life and contemplation. And as long as a being can contemplate his a chance to be happy.

Discussion Questions:
1. Aristotle characterizes the life of pleasure a suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with life of pleasure?
There’s nothing wrong with pleasure so long as it is kept in moderation. Because the excessive pleasure would eventually leads to hedonism.

2. Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else. Why is this? The agree or not?
He believes that philosophers will be happier that anyone else because only philosophers can achieve intellectual virtue which is the most perfect form of happiness.

Contemporary Moral Problems: The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its will alone – that is , good in its self.” – Immanuel Kant

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in you own person or in the person of any other.” – Immanuel Kant

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn more on the views regarding the nature of good will and how it is differentiated with duty. How this two factors influence how we come up with our decision and how we apply it when we interact with others.

Review:

This chapter basically talks about how good will and duty affects a person’s decision and how a person’s character shows based on how he/she reacts to a situation. I find the ideas of Kant to be both interesting and intellectually stimulating.

It seems that good will has so much influence in people that it would even affect the intelligence, judgment and other talents. Good will is something that a person does unconditionally and has good intentions for the certain act. Each person should be the author of their worn life and should not influenced be other people since good will is something that one decides on doing.

It is true that some people would actually just do something when they have a duty or an obligation to show action and this does not cover good will since it is not in their own free will.

What I have learned:
I have learned that good will has influence in each individuals action since good will tests the character of the person. There are times when I would criticize someone but it is actually good will as long as my intentions are for the better meant of his life because I did not really say bad this to spread bad things about him but to inform him that he has done something wrong and should be corrected.

Review Questions:
1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.
Kant said that it is impossible to create anything in the world except through good will. Good will is the one that makes intelligence, wit, judgment, etc.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
Hypothetical is the imperatives that you don’t know beforehand until the condition is given while categorical imperative is something that you already know.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant used this rule to derive some specific duties towards self and others.
Kant says that if an imperative of duty can come from one imperative as the other principles then even in it is not finished the duty may not be and empty concept.

4. State the second vision of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it.
We should judge our own life because we may not always have critiques because you have reach the end of your life.

Discussion Questions:
1. Are the two visions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.
It seems that the imperatives are similar since we will realize that both imperatives actually mean that we should be the people managing our own life. The first said that people must have one universal law which is connected to the second imperative that states that one should be definite.

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth do you agree or not?
I guess this is wrong since there are things that are beyond the motive of our duty. There are things that we do not notice because we want to do it because if we wish to do something we usually pursue it till we actually achieve it.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify non-moral actions. Is this a good criticism?
I am not so sure about this because I could not decipher the real meaning of the 1st imperative because I think that there is no universal law because not everybody has the same belief and there is no one thing that could do everything.

Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote :
“In treating them as they deserve to be treated, we are responding to the way they have freely chosen to behave. Thus in some instance we will not treat everyone alike, because people are not just members of an undifferentiated crowd. Instead, they are individuals who, by their own choices, show themselves to deserve different kinds of responses…..” -James Rachels

What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn the other views towards Utilitarianism. Based on the introduction of the chapter Rachel has given his view towards Utilitarianism that though Mill’s may be right about his view that one should consider the consequence of our action, Rachel states that Mills was incorrect in saying that we should ignore the moral consideration of the action. With this excerpt I had gather that there are other valid arguments / views with regards to the principle of utility.

Review:
In this chapter Rachel debates on the view of Mill’s thou he agrees with some of Mill’s points such that we should consider the consequence of our action in achieving happiness, he still points out that the moral considerations in a situation should not be bypassed or set aside. He also points out that ideas of Utilitarianism cannot be used for situations/ arguments with regards to Justice, Rights and “backwards –looking reasons” or promises (such as promises made earlier that was not kept). Common sense, intuition, moral considerations are also common points in the argument.

What have I learned:
I learned that the arguments and points that James Rachel had pointed out in his work has more basis that that of John Stuart Mill’s. Mill’s pointed out that you should consider the consequence of your action in order to achieve the happiness he did not consider the moral obligation of it. Moral obligation or bearing is quite important for us in our society. We were raised with certain views which influence our decisions. Rachel pointed out that if we do something for our happiness setting aside the moral implication we would not truly be happy in the end since our conscience would then bother us later causing us to be unhappy. I also learned that Rachel’s argument that the principles of utility cannot be used for issued with regards to justice and rights of a person, since this would still leave a lot of questions that could not be answered.

Review Questions
1. Rachel says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?
The three proposition of Rachel with regards to utilitarianism are as follows:

(a) Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequence. Nothing else matters.

(b) In the consequence the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant.

(c) In calculating the happiness or unhappiness that 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 with Hedonism is that it misunderstands the nature of happiness. It believes that since we think that something is good he are happy to have it and that if we lose it we would be unhappy regardless if the loss would really cause unhappiness or not. Utilitarian’s would defend this by saying that happiness is the ultimate good and that unhappiness is the one ultimate evil. They believe that the beauty of Hedonism is that it expresses that things are good or bad only in the account of the way they make us feel.

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

On Justice : based on the utilitarian ground the result is the most important fact. So If a person has to lie about something it would be justifiable as long as there is enough good consequence. Like the example that Rachel has stated if would be alright in the eyes of utilitarian’s for a person to bear false witness to another as long as a greater good would be achieved regardless if the person is innocent or not. This is why it cannot be used for justice since justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and merits.

On Rights : the argument here is that they believe that actions are defensible if they produce a favorable balance of happiness over unhappiness. Since they set aside the moral obligation of the action it would not matter if they trample on the rights of a person as long as it would bring happiness to a majority.

On Promises: Utilitarianism makes the past irrelevant, so if you had promised a someone something earlier in the week it would be alright to break it based on this theory since you are not obliged to push through with the plan. However, the fact that you promised imposes an obligation in your part to push through with the promise that you had made earlier.

4. Distinguish between rule – and act utilitarianism. How does rule utilitarianism reply to the objection?
Rule utilitarianism if a new version of utilitarianism it modified the theory so that rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will then be judged right or wrong by reference to the rules that was established while the Act utilitarianism is based on the on the original utilitarianism. The Rule utilitarianism cannot be convicted of violating our moral common sense since it has been brought in line with our intuitive judgment.

5. What is the Third line of defense?
It questions the reliability of our moral common sense. It states that our moral common sense may be incorporate various irrational elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, religion, and the general culture. And that why should be assume that our feeling or intuition are always correct.

Discussion Questions:
1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when the conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.
For me personally it is not acceptable. I believe more on the arguments of Rachel with regards to utilitarianism that there are something’s in life that this theory is not applicable. The common moral beliefs plays an important role in society and how a person is defined if we were to put this aside then there would be no send of right and wrong this is on part of human beings that differentiate us form animals which shows that we are capable of thinking and analyzing things that are happening around us and how to react to it.

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?
For me I believe that everyone and everything should be considered. Moral consideration is basically just what we would consider right or wrong. This could be applicable to all, to animals in the form of animal rights or in just not mistreating them, for the lake and streams it’s more on keeping them clean and “alive” for others and its habitants.

3. Rachel claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree with this idea of Rachel. People are treated by others depending on how the “project” themselves and how the treat others. Since they are responsible for their actions they should be able to accept the results of this weather it is a good or bad consequence.

Contemporary Moral Problems: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/
Quote:
“Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual taste, because they have no time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying” – John Stuart

“That happiness is a good: that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.” – John Stuart

What I expect to learn:
Base on the introduction of the chapter I would expect to learn more about the views of Utilitarian’s and how they incorporate it with everyday life.

Review:
John Stuart Mill talks about the principle of Utility which is also known as The Greatest Happiness Theory. He talked about happiness and how to achieve it. That happiness is the absence of pain and that pleasure is the absence of pain therefore the greatest happiness would be that which would give you’re the greatest pleasure without regards to the moral obligation to the act.

What I Have Learned:
I have learned that Utilitarianism is based on the happiness of a person and that it promotes pleasure and that both pleasure and happiness are based on the absence of pain. It was also stated that the greatest pleasure would be the one that would that gives the most pleasure regardless of the moral obligation of the act. That the higher a person’s intellect is the harder it is for him to achieve pleasure, since he has a higher standard for it in comparison to a person who are of lower stature they could easily find pleasure and appreciate the simpler things. I from what I have learned I believe that Utilitarianism could be used in twisting a scenario that would be generally wrong and justify it to be right and correct as long as they can prove that it gave happiness/pleasure in the end.

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.
The Principle of Utility are desired and desirable in and for themselves besides being means, they are a part of an end. This would mean that the principle of utility not only considers the thing that are desirable to which happiness would be achieved at one point, it is more on the desires that would lead to an end that would give greater pleasure and happiness to a person or to a majority. It could be used to justify what would be conventionally viewed as wrong since according to this principle it is alright to steal or lie as long as you do not hurt anyone and/or as long as it would bring happiness to the majority. An example would be an employee that would steal something from the company that he work for, like pack of blank CD’s that were issue to the department was taken by the employee for personal use since the company would not really take an inventory if the said CD’s were used for company use then they would not know that it was used by the said employee for personal reasons. Then the employee would not be caught therefore no harm was done and based on this principle the employee did nothing wrong.

2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
Mill’s answer this by stating that a comparison of the Epicureanism to that of a swine is degrading since the pleasure of an animal would not be enough to satisfy a human beings concept of happiness.

3. How Does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
According to Mill’s the lower pleasure are those that can be easily be satisfied therefore they are easily attained like those of a animal while those of higher pleasure are those that would be harder to achieve and they are usually associated with those pleasures that would be attained by a highly endowed being.

4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
Mills’ believe that the happiness of the individual concerned should be the one considered. That anything that would avoid inflicting pain or unhappiness to a person is considered to be good and if an event the decision / act would bring more happiness / pleasure to a majority then the deed done was good.

Discussion Questions:
1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
I believe this would be one of the most simple way to describe happiness that anyone would be able to understand, Since the feeling of pleasure could describe anything from the basic meaning of pleasure to the pleasure that you could derive from another person society or even an inanimate object that would be of sentimental value. And that “Pain” would be the most basic way to describe anything that one would used to describe something unpleasant, thus this unpleasant situation would lead to the unhappiness of a person.

2. Does Mill convince you that the so called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
I would have to say that Mill’s was not able to convince me that the higher pleasures are better than those of the lower kind. Mills had likened the lower pleasure to those pleasures of a beast or animal which are easily accomplished for me these are the basic things that people could find simple pleasure in which seem to have been forgotten in our “new” fast paced world. I would not be one who would look lowly to a person who would prefer the lower type of pleasure since I believe that they are can appreciate the simple things in life that majority of society have already given little importance too. If one could appreciate the simple pleasures in life then there would be less unhappiness in the world.

3. Mill say “In the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of utility.” Is this true or not?
Yes, I believe that it is true. The Golden Rule states that “ To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself.” Utilitarianism generally believes that the main goal is that one should avoid pain in order to be happy. A person would not knowingly inflict pain on himself therefore if he would treat another human being the way that he would treat himself then he would avoid anything that would hurt that person.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility is defective . Do you agree? If so, then what mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?
I do agree that Mill’s Principle of Utility is defective. Mill’s had justified that as long as no one is hurt directly in the process in achieving what makes you happy that then it would be alright. He uses this thinking to justify stealing and lying making it right/acceptable when basically it is wrong and unacceptable. It does not consider the moral implications nor does it consider other aspects such as the rights of others or the consequences of the act.