Migz’s Credit card validator

Check it out here.

Migz’s style switcher

Check it out here.

Migz’s Anexetastos Project

Check out my

Anexetastos Project!

Posted by:   Miguel E. Tablan

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: Annette Baier(The need for more than Justice)

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.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: John Rawls(Theory of Justice)

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of John Rawls. 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.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: Ronald Dworkin(Taking Rights Seriously)

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Ronald Dworkin. 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.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: Joel Feinberg(The Nature and Value of Rights)

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Joel Feinberg. 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.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: Aristotle(Happiness and Virtue)

In this part of the chapter the Author shared Aristotle’s essay. Aristotle made important
contributions to all areas of philosophy. He was the pupil of Plato who was also a great philosopher.
Aristotle was one of the founders of western philosophy. 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. The topics discussed in this chapter
were happiness and virtue. According to Aristotle happiness is not pleasure or wealth but an activity of
the soul in accordance with virtue. Pleasure will only bring happiness for a short period but its
consequence will last longer. An example is drugs or sex. People think that if they have the most pleasure
they become happy but the truth is pleasure brings misery. Pleasure can only bring true happiness when
it is done in moderation or at a reasonable time. I think that this is true because if a person is virtuous
then that person’s conscience is clean and with a clean conscience a person can be happy. Virtue
according to Aristotle is a balance or a habit of doing the right thing. I agree with Aristotle’s perception of
virtue. I think that a person is virtuous if that person maintains a balance in his life. Making a habit of
doing the right thing will also bring happiness to a person.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: Immanuel Kant(Categorical Imperative)

In this part of the chapter the author shared the essay of Immanuel Kant. 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.

Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White Chapter 1: James Rachels(The debate over Utilitarianism)

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.