Annette Baier: The need for More Than Justice

Twelfth topic:

In this particular reading, Annette Baier learned from Kant and Rawls the justice perspective especially on the moral development on women. She argues that justice is inadequate as a moral theory. Inequalities means that, certain emotions don’t have importance to few of us. For Baier, 2 important things regarding moral theory, the justice and care. Based on the reading, “justice is a social value of very great importance and injustice an evil”. This means that, in this world justice is very important to us. Like our generation, most of the people are now “evil thinker”. Several crimes occurred like bombing, killing, kidnapping etc. Our world now is full of evil. That’s why we must value and have the sense of importance on justice.  Next is about “care”, she mentioned on the reading that in Gilligan’s perspective, women perceive the fraternity or the value of equalities most easily.

In the reading, Baier also mentioned about the two perspectives on moral and social issues. First perspective is the justice perspective. As I’ve said earlier, we must have a great importance to justice and we should have time for it and must learn to value justice. Second is the care perspective, the reading mentioned that many of the male philosophers have contributions on care perspective such as Laurence Thomas, Lawrence Blum and Michael Stucker.

Full reading here

Ronald Rawls: A Theory of Justice

Eleventh topic:

:

Basically this reading is all about justice and what are the two justice principles formulated by Rawls. On the first part of the reading, Rawls mentioned about his understandings about the original position. Rawls said that, in working out the perspective of justice as fairness is you should determine which principles of justice would be chosen in the original position. Based on the reading original position is based on the understanding it as a purely hypothetical situation characterized in order for you to lead to the conception of justice. He said that in original position, no one knows his place, his situation, his world such as his intelligence, strength and weaknesses. That’s why he said that the principles of justice is based on the veil of ignorance. In other words, everyone will be treated equally or based on the reading no one is advantaged or disadvantaged.

Rawls, although he said that it is only the tentative, formulated 2 principles. One is, “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. This means that, everyone has the right to do something that makes him happy as long as that thing does not hinder with similar happiness to others. For me this principle will become complicated to someone because if a certain person does a thing that makes him happy and that thing is illegal. The second principle is: “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage”. This principle means that everyone should have the advantage and all things should be accessible to everyone.

Full reading here

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

Tenth topic:

According to Ronald Dworkin, a professor in Oxford University and authors of different works such as the “A bill of Rights for Britain”, if you have the right to pursue something then it is wrong when someone hinders you to pursue that thing. For example, in a democracy country, government should not obstruct the rights of the people. For Dworkin, it is wrong to interfere somebody’s rights. In the reading, Dworkin discussed about legal rights and moral rights. In my opinion, legal rights is just a rights imposed by the government. We can say that a legal right is a moral right if it is good on your perspectives and others’ perspectives.  For example, in your culture you have the right to share your opinions, reactions and comments to the noble ones and if you and other people think that it is a good perspective then you can do it.  We can also say that a moral right is not a legal right if it is not good on the perspectives of the ruler or the government. For example, in your country has declared the martial law and you do not have the right to speak to the public and only those officials have the right to speak up, then it is not a legal right because it is imposed and it is the order of the government. Dworkin also formulates two different models to define the rights of citizens: if the government infringes on a moral right and if the government inflates a right.

Full reading here

Joel Frienberg: Nature and Value of Rights

Ninth topic:

Human rights? What are the rights of people? I would like to share our human rights here in Philippines. According to Wikipedia:

“Human rights in the Philippines has been a subject of concern and controversy. According to U.S. Country Profile on the Philippines dated March 2006, the U.S. State Department reported in 2006 that Philippine security forces have been responsible for serious human rights abuses despite the efforts of civilian authorities to control them.^[1] The report found that although the government generally respected human rights, some security forces elements—particularly the Philippine National Police—practiced extrajudicial killings, vigilantism, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention in their battle against criminals and terrorists. Prison conditions were harsh, and the slow judicial process as well as corrupt police, judges, and prosecutors impaired due process and the rule of law Besides criminals and terrorists, human rights activists, atheists and agnostic, left-wing political activists, and Muslims were sometimes the victims of improper police conduct. Violence against women and abuse of children remained serious problems, and some children were pressed into slave labor and prostitution. “

For Frienberg, rights is one of the important for us people especially if your country has a democracy country like Philippines. Imagine that, even if the children has the rights such as right to go to schools and to be educated.  For him, when you do not value rights if the people, you cannot make moral claims because you stole justice and rights from them.

Full reading here and reference

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

Eighth topic:

We all know that Aristotle is one of the most important persons and biggest names not only on the field of philosophy but also on the field of science, logic and many more. People know about Aristotle about his contributions in philosophy. When we are studying philosophy, one of the longest topics is about Aristotle. In this particular reading, talks about one of his major contributions the happiness and virtue. So do you mean by happiness? By virtue?  In my reaction and in the reading we can figure out how they differ. Happiness, based on the text, is comes on our soul. Meaning, we are related we are one of the significances of happiness. Supposing an entrepreneur, initially he did startups, making investments, looking for his venture capitalists , etc. Then as he achieved his dreams he became happy and satisfied. That’s the thing why people are involved in happiness. Next on the list is the virtue?  Basically, first thing comes in my mind is “do it first before you enjoy”. Based on my understandings, we are feeling the sense of virtue when we attain happiness. It means that, you must push through yourself for a certain thing before you achieve something big. For example, in IT-ETHICS class, before you can get a 4.0 grade, you must be a hardworking student and active in all deliverables. Then you reached your goal and you are happy. And there is the sense of joyful, achievement and satisfaction.

Full reading here

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Seventh topic:

For this particular reading, I wonder first what the meaning of categorical imperative is. Based on my understandings, Immanuel Kant made a one supreme rule, the categorical imperative. Through that rule he defined different versions, the good will and duty. This two versions, he explained how this two affects us. First on the list is the good will. What is a good will? For me, a good will is an act is done properly or it is done with the sense of care. From the word itself, “good”, meaning  it rightly done by a certain person. For instance, you are in the mall and you saw a wallet on the floor and bringing it to the customer service area. It is a will. When we say a will, it is optional or in other words you can do certain thing or not. For good will, it is your option to do certain thing but in “duty” – you must do it whether you want or not. A good example of this is the law. If you can’t obey laws, you can be sued in court or even in jail.  Immanuel Kant also discussed about psychological imperative and categorical imperative. Psychological means that you don’t know what’s the will contain until a condition is given. On the other hand, categorical imperative means that you know what a certain thing contains. For example, a certain doings you wish to desired but you don’t know what the consequences you should do before are. And doing a certain thing that you already knew the consequences if you do that thing.

Full reading here

James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Sixth topic:

We discussed that utilitarianism is your pleasure to be happy. Utility means that you have the sense of joy and satisfaction. One good example is when you are discipline yourself on eating delicious food. Based on my perspectives on this scenario, when you wish to eat a particular food, you think first whether if you continue to eat, is it for your pleasure or for your health? We, Filipinos are fun of eating so that this particular scenario is very applicable on utilitarianism.  “Pleasure” is the key word for this reading. For me, it is applicable on our life especially on decision making on your duties. It emphasizes that we must think first before you move for the next level. Just like playing an RPG game, you must concentrate and focus first on your existing level before you claim your reward. In reality, you must think first on your decision to do business or not. James Rachels mentioned about the Hedonsim. It claims that happiness is a good manner and the sense of unhappiness is evil. I agree on this statement and it is relevant in our daily life. For example you are in a large company and you have the most complicated job in your department, you must overcome your stress and the feeling of depression. You must take into account your happiness being human in this world. In other words, take into account and take the brighter side or the positive side. Life is attraction. If you wish to be happy then you will claim your reward then if you wish to be unhappy then you must overcome your bad feelings.

Full reading here

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Fifth topic:

For all of the people I know, probably all of them want to be happy or they want to feel that sense of joy, satisfaction and contentment. This particular reading is the one of the contribution of John Stuart Mill, one of the most important and influential British philosophers. One of his basic principles is all about the Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle. The reading said in order for you to be happy, you must have the sense of pleasure. Based on my additional research (from Wikipedia.com), utilitarianism is an action that is determined in providing happiness and pleasure. It is actually a form of consequentialism, or in other words that the moral worth of an action is based on its outcome.

On the first part of the article, it goes like this, “Greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” This is definitely true especially in real life. Why? How come? It is because when you want something, you can do all your best to pursue that thing. In my opinion, this statement has similarities on the contents of the book, “The Secret”. The book is actually emphasizes the “law of attraction”, when you have things that you don’t want to happen, take away them from your minds. Just focus on the positive or the brighter side. For me, it is also the essence of utility. Focus on the things you want then it will surely happen.

Full reading here

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Fourth topic:

When I first read the title of this reading, I wonder about the sword in the title. It was actually culture of the Japanese wherein, samurai sword should be tested and tried. If the sword worked, it had to slice through someone, from shoulder to the opposite flank, then if it doesn’t work, then the warrior ruined his ancestors and may affect his honor in his place. Mary gave this as an example because of culture. Basically the reading is all about culture. He also mentioned about “moral isolationism” which means that based on the reading, we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. He argued that “nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them. 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”

In my opinion, he’s right about disagreeing this particular statement. I think the quote is true because in respecting one’s culture you think before if it is clear to your or you understand very well the culture. In other words, you have seen of tried a certain culture. For example, in a certain place, their culture is to kill somebody. So, in this culture, I can have my objection and try to protest why they have that type of culture in their place. Midgey also mentioned some questions should be answered related in moral isolationism and examples as well

Full reading here

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave-Morality

Third topic:

This part of the chapter is basically the contributions of Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher and poet. He divided his text into two, master-morality and slave-morality. Firstly based on on my research on the net (thanks for Wikipedia), master morality is defined by Friedrich Nietzsche as the morality of the strong-willed.  Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British ideology that good is everything that is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. He argues that this view has forgotten the origins of the values, and thus it calls what is useful good on the grounds of habitualness – what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, “the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences” but ultimately, “There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena.”  On the other hand, slave morality is defined by Nietzsche as a re-sentiment or in other words, revaluing that which the master values. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and skepticism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as ‘good’. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one’s will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility.

Click here for the reading and for reference