read the full PDF here

Annette Baier is a teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. She authored several
significant books about morality and ethics. I think that having this background he would be able to share
a lot of interesting theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis
for something being ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to
share some important theories and insights about ethics. What Annette Baier is suggesting that the
government takes care of the people. Annette thinks that if the government is taking care of its people
then the need for justice to be served will be lessen. People who do criminal activities will be lessened
because there won’t be a need for them to do so. Governments must take care of the weak because
without their care those people are the ones who will be committing crime and as a result there will be
more pressure on the judicial system and it will be less effective.

read the full PDF here

John Rawls is a professor of philosophy at Harvard University. He authored several significant books about the Law and Justice. I
think that having this background he would be able to share a lot of interesting theories and insights about
ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a
person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about
ethics. In Rawls’s theory there are two principles of justice; one is about equal basic liberties and the
other is about the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. I think that tackling these two issues
about justice is a good thing. There are a lot of injustices today concerning the people’s lack of basic
liberties and inequalities in the justice system. Basically what John Rawls is proposing is to give everyone
equal access to the basic judicial services of the government and treat everyone as equals. I think that by
doing this people have more rights because they are granted basic services by the government. A lot of
nations deprive the little people of justice which results in lots of unjust imprisonments. Corruption will
also be lessened since the criminal justice system is treating the people as equals. With a more efficient
justice system determining what is ethical and what is not will be a little bit easier……

read the full PDF here

Joel Feinberg is a professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona. He authored several significant books concerning
philosophy and human behavior. I think that having this background he would be able to share a lot of
interesting theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for
something being ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share
some important theories and insights about ethics. In this essay Joel Feinberg wants to demonstrate or
show how important rights are in connection with morality. Without rights people will be deprived of
freedom and voice out their concerns. If they are unable to do this they will be deprived of justice and
without all these freedoms people will become miserable. I also found Joel Feinberg’s example really
interesting. He described a town called Nowheresville and in this town people have no rights. He
described Nowheresville as having pretty and virtuous people and a friendly environment. The only thing
missing in this town is rights. He used this example to criticize Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative…

read the full PDF here

Aristotle believed virtues led to happiness. The happiness that Aristotle spoke of was not
necessarily the same that we would think of today. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonic. We
want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead. So we see a night out or a pleasant
activity as a route to happiness. The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness.
Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness. Eudaimonia is
not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by
living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you
that you can be. Aristotle thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of
being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation. For
example, courage would be the balance and moderation between excessive amounts, rashness and
insufficient amounts, cowardice. Generosity would be the mid-ground between being a wasteful
spendthrift and being a miser.He strongly disagreed with Socrates who knowledge would automatically
lead to the right action. Aristotle argued that the greatest misdeed was to know the right course, but fail to
do it……

read the full PDF here

Immanuel Kant is a German who was one of the most important Philosophers of all time. He contributed to all areas of
Philosophy and wrote many significant books in the areas of Philosophy and reasoning. I think that with
Immanuel Kant’s background he would be able to share a lot of interesting theories and insights about
ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being ethical or not I think that a
person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important theories and insights about
ethics. The main topic in his essay was about The Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative
according to Immanuel Kant is a supreme rule where our moral duties can be derived. Immanuel Kant
expressed great disapproval with Utilitarianism and this is why he devised the Categorical Imperative
which according to him will correct the shortcomings of Utilitarianism. Categorical Imperative allows
people to act based on what is right for ourselves and for others. Kant argues that the highest form of
good is good will. To have good will is to perform one’s duty. To do one’s duty is to perform actions which
are morally required and to avoid those actions which are morally forbidden. Kant said that we should
perform our duty because it is our duty and for no other reason. To perform an action out of desire for any
self indulgent consequences is not a morally good action. Duty is good in itself. Kant believed that we
should act out of duty and not emotion. A human action isn’t morally good because we feel it’s good, or
because it is in our own self interest. Even if duty demanded the same action, but it was done for a motive
such as compassion, the act would be a good act, but the person would not be moral for choosing it….

read the full PDF here

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of James Rachels. James Rachels is a University
Professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He authored three significant books about
morality. I think that with James Rachel’s background he would be able to share a lot of interesting
theories and insights about ethics. Since most of the time morality is used as a basis for something being
ethical or not I think that a person who knows a lot about morality would be able to share some important
theories and insights about ethics. James Rachels objected to the ideas of utilitarianism based on three
propositions. The first proposition is about judging whether an action is right or wrong based their
consequences. Basically it is like choosing the lesser evil. James Rachels argued that this is not entirely
correct because commons sense is used in choosing right and wrong with Utilitarianism and common
sense cannot fully be trusted. It cannot be trusted because what is right in common sense is based on
merit and not what is entirely right. The second proposition is about happiness. The right action is the one
that creates more happiness then misery. James Rachels argues that this is wrong because the right
thing to do is not the one that causes happiness but the one that causes less suffering. The third
proposition is about consequences. According to utilitarianism the right action is the one that has less
negative consequences. James Rachels argues that this proposition is flawed because it is not
compatible with justice. An action can have less negative consequence to the doer but it can cause
damage to other people…..

read the full PDF here

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill is an influential
British Philosopher. He wrote several books about ethics, morality and philosophy. In his essay the main
topic was utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by
its contribution to overall utility that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all
persons. Basically it is the action with the greatest good for the majority. This is the ethical theory that I
agree with. I think that the right thing to do is the one that would benefit the majority. Utilitarianism is also
about actions which would bring happiness to the majority. Another interesting topic discussed in this
essay is of what sort of proof the Principal of Utility us susceptible. Mill argues that the only proof that
something is desirable is that people actually desire it. It is a fact that happiness is a good, because all
people desire their own happiness. Thus, it is clear that happiness is at least one end, and one criterion,
of morality. However, in order to show that happiness is the sole criterion for morality, it is necessary to
show that people never desire anything but happiness. Mill says that people do desire things like virtue,
which in common language is distinguished from happiness……

read the full PDF here

Psycholocgical Egosim is also defined as a reflex that every person has to orient themselves
toward their own welfare. Through this, it follows that every one of his (or her) voluntary actions is some
good to himself. If someone gives away the last piece of bread to someone else, it is because they want
to look like a better person, due to the fact that they would give away the last piece of bread. Human
nature is completely and exclusively egoistic. People are entirely selfish and devoid of any genuine
feelings of sympathy, benevolence, or sociability. They are always thinking of themselves in everything
they do. Each individual is preoccupied exclusively with the gratification of personal desires (felicity or
happiness).Ones success in maintaining a continuous flow of gratification is the means of one’s
happiness. Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. We
assume, for example, that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decide
what actions to perform or what rules to obey; we think that we must refrain from acting in ways harmful to
others, and that we must respect their rights and interests as well as our own. We also assume that
people are in fact capable of being motivated by such considerations, that is, that people are not wholly
selfish and that they do sometimes act in the interests of others…..

read the full PDF here

People are becoming more and more devoid of morals. Just about all of us have a set of rules
that we live by, a personal list of do’s and don’ts that is based on our own belief system. I have to agree
with that statement because I myself have my do’s and don’ts regardless of what my family or my religion
believes in. For me it is all about believing on what you believe is right, no influence of religion, family,
and etc. These sets of rules are what make us unique and set us apart from the animals. However, now,
more than ever, our society represents one based on a foundation of immorality and principles that are
meaningless. As we look outside our windows, vast amounts of crime, war, and lies is all that can be
seen. I’ll give a concrete example about that. Our generation is now more into pre-marital sex. Every
person I talk to will say that is normal nowadays. I don’t know what triggered this but what know is many
people are realizing that morals are hindrances to their lives. For example, it is stipulated in the bible that
you must not have sex before marriage. Today, many people don’t believe that already. If you will
internalize it, you will find out that it is somehow true. Pre-marital sex is cool indeed. As per movies, it is
now common to have this kind of acts present. There seems to be an abundance of publicists, lobbyists,
marketers, and lawyers who all they want is money, and they do whatever it takes to get it, without any
disregard for anyone or anything that gets in their way. This compromise of morals may soon lead the
world into chaos and disorder. How can one define morality? What is right and wrong? What is good and
evil? It is mankind’s most crucial element. Morality is the basis in which man judges himself…….

read the full PDF here

With the help of Wikipedia, I found out that master-slave morality is the central theme of Friedrich
Nietzsche’s works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that
there were two fundamental types of morality: ‘Master morality’ and ’slave morality’. Master morality
weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a
scale of good or evil intentions. What Nietzsche meant by ‘morality’ deviates from common understanding
of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture.
This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the
struggle between these two types of moral valuation. For Nietzsche, master-slave morality provides the
basis of all exegesis of Western thought. Moving on to Nietzsche’s concept of master morality, it is the
morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. Morality as
such is sentiment. 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. For these strong-willed men, the ‘good’ is the noble, strong and powerful, while the ‘bad’ is
the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Morality is designed to
protect that which the strong-willed man values, and for slave and master, Fear is the mother of morality.
Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness,
trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the ‘noble man’ with a spontaneous
idea of the good, and then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. The noble type of man
experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, what is harmful to me is
harmful in itself; it knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; it is value-creating. In this
sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as
something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strongwilled
man values such things as ‘good’. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to mastermorality
with their slave-morality…..

read the full PDF here

Midgley’s definition of moral isolationism is the following, in consists in simply denying that we
can ever understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it. One of the
reasons that she argues that this is an untenable position is that if we cannot sufficiently understand
another culture to criticize them, we would not be able to praise them either. If tomorrow, China turned
from a Communist country to a Democratic one, we would want to praise them for making the right
choice. However, if one holds that we cannot criticize cultures that hold to different values because we
don’t have sufficient understanding of them, it would then be inconsistent to be able to praise other
cultures as well. Midgley’s example of an aspect of a different society that we would praise is some of the
virtues held by Samurais. Her point is however the same. She takes the idea that we cannot praise other
cultures for a set of values as absurd. Hence, moral isolationism results in an absurd consequence that
should cause it to be rejected. Her second point against moral isolationism is that if we are not able to
make moral judgments about other societies, we are not able to make them about our own either. She
explains how moral judgment is void if moral isolationism is true. Our opinions of other societies being
good or bad are necessary in order to state an opinion concerning our own. These opposing ideas form a
range of comparison which allows us to say whether we should or should not be like them. One example
is how the Samurais used to test their battle swords on random commoners in order to insure that the
sword was correctly sharpened. If we didn’t come to the conclusion that this practice was unjust, then
how could we come to the conclusion that we should perform this practice in our society? The only way to
learn from other society’s mistakes or successes is to be able to form moral judgments about them. In this
sense, Midgley says how moral judgment is not something we can discard. It is necessary if we are to
learn from other’s mistakes. If moral isolationism was true, we would not be able to learn from other
culture’s mistakes or successes. Since we can learn from other country’s mistakes, moral isolationism is
false. The first of Midgley’s assumptions is that moral judgment is necessary. When we judge something
as good, we are saying that there is reason to pursue it. It is the same way with judging something as
bad; we are stating that there is reason to avoid it. Her second assumption is needed for her first point
against moral isolationism to hold. That being that we can understand a culture enough to praise them.
For her second point against moral isolationism to hold, she must assume that moral reasoning in general
is justified. She assumes that it is plausible to say that certain acts are right or wrong. Her last assumption
can be illuminated by asking the question, “What does it mean to be ‘of’ a certain society?…..