Surrogates (Bruce Willis) <click here for link>

The Ugly Truth (Katherine Heigl, Gerard Butler) <click here for link>

2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet) <click here for link>

Land of the Lost (Will Ferrell) <click here for link>

I Love You Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere, Samm Levine) <click here for link>

The Proposal (Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds) <click here for link>

Funny People (Ken Jeong, Seth Rogen, Adam Sandler) <click here for link>

The Boat that Rocked (Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, Philip Seymour Hoffman) <click here for link>

Post Grad (Alexis Bledel) <click here for link>

The Time Traveler’s Wife (Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams) <click here for link>

We are helping psychometricians around the world to gather data. Currently, this is done manually using paper survey forms then they tally the results.

Please visit the application and take the test:

here (for FaceBook users)

here (for non-FaceBook users)

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.

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……

Ronald Dowrkin is a University professor at Jurisprudence, Oxford University, and professor of Law at New York University. 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. Ronald Dworkin argued that it is wrong for people to interfere with the rights of other people. I
agree with Ronald Dworkin on this, I think that it is really immoral for a person to interfere with another
person’s rights. We can see its effects on nations that have taken the rights of its people. The result is
chaos, insurrection, rebellion, and unrest. Governments must respect the rights of the people in order for
them to have a stable and strong nation. Ronald Dwokin also condemned governments treating people
who have committed civil disobedience harshly. If governments treat their people with respect and
integrity it would be much easier to govern the nation. Silencing free speech is never the answer to
solving political unrest. I think that this is true because by silencing the people their anger will only build
up more and more and there will come a time when all this anger will be put on display and it would be
disastrous for the nation…..

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…

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……

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….

Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: Argel Cruz, ITETHIC ]]> http://cruzargel.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/cmp-ethical-theories-immanuel-kant-%e2%80%93-the-categorical-imerative-contemporary-moral-problems-by-james-e-white/feed/ 0 ArgeL http://cruzargel.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/cmp-ethical-theories-james-rachels-%e2%80%93-the-debate-over-utilitarianism-contemporary-moral-problems-by-james-e-white/ http://cruzargel.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/cmp-ethical-theories-james-rachels-%e2%80%93-the-debate-over-utilitarianism-contemporary-moral-problems-by-james-e-white/#comments Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:09:32 +0000 ArgeL CruZ http://cruzargel.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/cmp-ethical-theories-james-rachels-%e2%80%93-the-debate-over-utilitarianism-contemporary-moral-problems-by-james-e-white/ ]]> 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…..