Creative Commons License Reader Blog Posts by Abram John A. Limpin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License. Based on a work at brumbrumbrum.wordpress.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at
April 19, 2009 • 2:10 am 0
Creative Commons
April 19, 2009 • 1:58 am 0
IT-ETHIC Reader by Abram John A. Limpin
April 19, 2009 • 1:50 am 0
Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “Let me say quite clearly at this early point that there is little disagreement that justice is a social value of very great importance, and injustice an evil.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand how it is important to have justice
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about philosophers
Review:
In this chapter, Annette Baier, teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, noted some of here insights about the perspective of Giligan during her studies on the moral development of woman. She also distinguished other concepts coming from other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Rawls.
According to her, “justice and care should be harmonized with each other. Harmonization between the two would form something that will take care of people even when they do something to other people. The harmonization of justice and care is the same as the harmonization of man and woman. The cooperation of the two will form something that will be beneficial for the both parties.” The bonding of both characteristics would produce a chance where manly ethics and knowledge can be shared to womanly ethics and knowledge which in time will produce an outcome that will benefit a lot of people.”
The author disagreed to some ideologies she thinks not applicable and not helpful for human beings. Justice, I believe, is something to be done according to the betterment of the community. Justice will only prevail as long as people meet up in a common good. Justice is something everyone should earn and strive for. It isn’t just something we beg from others, it is something we work really hard. Persevering in doing our commitments to stay justice in line is important.
Learning to care for justice is essential for each person. Just by simply caring for one another, it only shows how people are valued by anybody. “Caring for others is something that comes from virtue or morality in life. People who grew up with someone who care for them tends to gain this characteristic and share it to others.”
Care with justice is just saying that even though a person committed something that is unacceptable for the society, it doesn’t mean that the person who committed the act should be treated like trash or waste. Proper care should still be present because that person who committed the act still has the right to be human.
What I’ve Learned:
- People change as well as the society and justice
- Justice is something we should persevere on
- People needs justice, just like people needs food
- Fairness is important
Integrative Questions:
1. Who is Annette Baier?
2. What are the things she wanted to harmonize together?
3. Whose work this she followed?
4. How does care affect the way people live?
5. What does care have to do with Annette Baier?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:50 am 0
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “The rights and liberties referred to by these principles are those which are defined by the public rules of the basic structure.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand how the theory of justice works
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about philosophers
Review:
This chapter talks about the distinction between two principles of justice, stated by John Rawls, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University. The first principle involves equality in basic liberties. The second principle involves the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. These principles are those of which people are accepting all over the world. It is widely accepted by a lot of people because of which it is beneficial to all. That is the goal of justice, to make all people equal in their own rights. Equality and fairness is what all people want for them to be able to have peace with other people.
The balance that people wants is sometimes very difficult to obtain because there are some people who is selfish and is against equality. All they want is for them to be much up ahead compared to others. There is some situations where people who are having difficulties in life gets the notion that if they would take something from people who are fortunate than them, it is ok for them to take it. It is ok for them because they think that it is a way for them to be equal to those who are not less fortunate. This notion is the cause of imbalance in a place where equality and fairness is of the most sacred rule.
Justice is given to us the state and develops by other humans like us who sees to protect the interest of our well being. We need to know and renew and apply those values of the past to our present. We do not need to abandoned the old ones we only to rethink it and apply it if needed. The wrong thing about Kantian extends that equal rights to all ration beings including women and minorities is that they over extend it and did not put boundaries to it. I think he would say that is only right to have equal rights to all.
What I’ve learned:
- Theory of Justice is used by people worldwide to enforce equality and fairness towards each other.
- Justice will always prevail
Integrative Questions:
1. Who is John Rawls?
2. What are the two principles of justice?
3. What is justice?
4. What is the difference between the two principles?
5. How do these principles affect the way people live?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:49 am 0
Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “If people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand how we should take rights seriously
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about philosophers
Review:
In this chapter, the author, James White, and written by James E. White, Ronald Dworkin, a university professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford University and professor of law in New York University, talked about the concept behind The Right of Freedom. According to them, “If people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them.” For me, everybody is entitled to have their equal rights and I believe nobody should take it to someone. As a human being, each person should learn how to respect other rights. If people take away other’s right, obviously, the person already violated the rights of other person, thus, making him guilty against the law.
Just like media – everyone has the right to express their thoughts using various technologies that we have these days. That’s what freedom of expression is all about. They are free to do these things without infringing other’s right. However, a lot of people fail to respect other’s right. Ever since the hierarchy system was invented, people are not treating as equal as they can be. Minorities were affected a lot. Higher authorities do the job to keep everyone in order. Unfortunately, they were the ones guilty of harassing people. Authority and power started to become a factor. People are getting abused because few people with powers can do what they want. What they don’t realize is that they are ruining the lives of many.
What this chapter wants us to realize is that we should learn how to treat these rights seriously. If we learn how to treat every one as equal, there won’t be a problem. Having a right means a responsibility. And having a responsibility calls for an action. We must be aware of these things in order to keep our community at peace.
What I’ve learned:
- People should understand how we should take rights seriously
- With respect and taking the rights seriously, people also takes seriously the laws being implemented.
- Respect.
Integrative Questions:
1. What is morality?
2. What is ethics?
3. What is rationality
4. What is law
5. What is equity?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:48 am 0
Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “Having rights, or course, makes claiming possible; but it is claiming that gives rights their special moral significance.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand what nature and value of rights
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about philosophers
Review:
One thing that this chapter talked about is about how nature of value works. In our society, every person has its own rights and own deeds to be done. Having the right of a human person keeps the community in tact. In every rights we have, we also have responsibility to take care of our actions. Creating rights for people creates common good, or simply, common ground. People will be more aware of what actions should be done to avoid violating the rights of a person.
Having the right doesn’t mean you can do everything you want. In this democratic country that we have, we have freedom to express our feelings to everybody else. Each person is capable of expressing his thoughts, opinions, suggestions and other views in the community. Having a right means responsibility, you should do actions according to your conscience and what is implied in the law.
What Feinberg wants to reiterate is the idea that a person could defend for his or her rights. Every body has a balanced authority to defend themselves against the threats of others. That’s why we have our local authorities today. They are the ones who are responsible in enforcing the law provided. These groups of people are responsible for keeping the community peace, safe, and in order. As long as you feel harassed by someone, fight for your right.
People should learn how to value the rights of other people – same as people respect their own rights. People should respect just like they wanted to be respected by every one else. It’s a cycle out there. We should learn how to adapt in a way the every human person would create a big difference in the community.
What I’ve learned:
- The nature of value of rights
- Learn to value and respect other’s right
- Treat everyone as equal human being
Integrative Questions:
1. Who is Joel Feinberg?
2. What is nature of rights?
3. What is value of rights?
4. What is the difference between the two?
5. How does Nature and Value of rights affect the way people live?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:48 am 0
Aristotle: Happiness and Values
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “But such a life would be too high for man; for it is not so far as he is the man that he will live so, but in so far as something divine is present in him; and by so much as this is superior to that which is the exercise of the other kind of virtue.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand the relevance between happiness and values
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to learn new ideas about Aristotle
Review:
In this chapter, the great philosopher Aristotle discussed different types of virtues and how an individual can achieve happiness. According to the first few paragraphs, Aristotle explained that happiness coming from the humans is a “life long process.” He also added that happiness is something that isn’t constant – it keeps on going and going until the ‘purpose’ of it is finally met. Happiness, as what he explained, is an ‘activity of the soul’ on which actually, virtue takes place to the soul’s potential.
In the next few paragraphs, Aristotle defined virtue. According to him, being virtuous is ‘self-sufficient in itself’, which later leads to human happiness. Aristotle was able to clearly define the difference between the two kinds of virtue: the moral virtue and the intellectual virtue. As when he stated, “Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mea between the vices of excess and deficiency.” This talks about the means and the extremes of a certain action. On the other hand, Aristotle defined intellectual virtue as a virtue that “produces the most perfect happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation.“
.There were ideas coming Aristotle which are mainly discussed, such as having a behavior should be imposed in a person, where a relative mean is present in his action/s. This relative mean is between two extremes – one is for deficiency and another for excess. For a person to be ethical in his virtues, he/she should learn how to master these extremes, controlling them, in any circumstances might happen. The ability to ‘balance’ between the two is quite challenging for most people. Usually, people end up working with either of the extremes, rather than keeping themselves intact in the relative mean.
Aristotle addressed his ideas about intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues create a ‘separation’ between human forms to animals – making us humans have the ability to rationalize. Humans think and reason, while animals can’t. What Aristotle wanted to tell his readers is that we should make ourselves more virtuous as we face the daily challenges of life. Being virtuous is self-fulfilling and self-rewarding – it makes you feel delighted and contented on what you are doing.
If we allow ourselves to experience this in a very long time, in Aristotle’s eyes, we can achieve true happiness.
What I’ve learned:
- How Aristotle defined happiness
- What are the kinds of virtue and what is a relative mean
- Learning to become virtuous makes a person happy
Integrative Questions:
- How can one person achieve true happiness?
- Is pleasure automatically calling itself as being happy?
- How does virtue/s affect happiness? In what sense?
- How does happiness affect the way people think about morality?
- How one can be called as ‘insensible’?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:47 am 0
Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “There is therefore only a single categorical imperative and it is this: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand what categorical imperative is all about
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about philosophers
Review:
In this chapter, the author, Immanuel Kant, discusses about “The Categorical Imperative”. As what he defined it, it is a kind of morality where people affirm that each one of them has his own obligations and duties in life. According to Kant, he “believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule, the categorical imperative, from which all our duties can be derived.” There should be one supreme rule for morality so that all of the people can go with it and live their lives with it.
Categorical Imperative instills the mind of a person to understand first how to deal with issues or concerns, by simply thinking. As we all know, it’s better to think first before we act on something we are unsure. Usually, when we experience this kind of ‘decision-making’, we choose between our conscience and our convictions in dealing with them. Categorical imperative sometimes create this wrong notion that people do actions selfishly, however, what categorical imperative wants us to understand is that we create or do something based on the welfare of others.
People will always undergo with this kind of situation wherein we are challenged between right and wrong. No matter how hard it is to choose what should be done, we must remember that we keep our morality fit in. Morality makes situations more constrict in a way that they could alter the laws that are already been put into practice. At the end of the day, your actions would always reflect your character as well.
What I’ve learned:
- Kant explained how the standards of rationality from which all moral requirements were derived.
- The categorical imperative breaks the idea of utilitarianism
- Ideas explained by the ‘maxims’
Integrative Questions:
- What is The Categorical imperative?
- How does it affect the morality thinking of people?
- Which should be followed by many – the first or the second formulation? Why?
- What does the account of the good will all about?
- Why categorical imperative became an issue to Contemporary Moral Problems?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:46 am 0
James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand the definition of utilitarianism
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about the philosopher
Review:
This chapter talked about the propositions declared by the author, James Rachels, about his debate over utilitarianism:
The first proposition is when we judge our actions base on what we know is right and wrong. Hedonism is about pleasure and nothing is bad when your action is came from pleasure because you just satisfying your needs as a human being. “The respond of the defenders of utilitarianism to hedonism is their two doctrines the good and the right.”
Second proposition is when we think about the consequence of our action after we judge it and thus making the right actions the greatest producers of balance of happiness over unhappiness. “Utilitarianism is about pleasure but what is good and right pleasure in a human being to have.”
Third proposition is calculating the happiness and unhappiness that we felt after our action. Justice, rights, and promises are being done because they don’t want to have scandals and riots. In short justice, rights, and promises are done to have peace and order in the society. “The act utilitarian considers the consequences of the act while the rule utilitarian considers the consequences that result of a rule of conduct. Utilitarianism reply to the objections by analyzing first the problem, then judge whether that action is right or not before thinking the consequence to the action made.”
What I’ve learned:
· What is utilitarianism
· Take considerations first before doing an action
· Utilities are not compulsory to live in this world
Integrative Questions:
1. Why James Rachels make a debate?
2. What is utilitarianism?
3. What were his arguments about utilitarianism?
4. What is universal?
5. What is the basis?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
April 19, 2009 • 1:46 am 0
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Book: Contemporary Moral Problems by James E. White (7th Edition)
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/
Quote: “Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle, says that the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable, whether we are considering our own good or that of other people, is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible from enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality.”
Learning Expectations:
- to understand the definition of utilitarianism
- to be more aware of philosophical terms
- to understand how important it is to view morality in different ways
- to determine how should this philosophical moral problems are important
- to learn new ideas about the philosopher
Review:
This chapter talks about John Mill’s definition of utilitarianism. According to Wikipedia, “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. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome: put simply, the ends justify the means. Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain). It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.”
Mill also discussed two concept of utilitarianism: rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism states that, “when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure.” On the other hand, the rule utilitarian begins by “looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed.” The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore “based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules.”
What I’ve learned:
- Some facts about Hedonism
- Why does Hedonism considered as ‘anti-happiness’?
- Difference between Hedonism and Utilitarianism
Integrative Questions:
- What is Hedonism?
- What is Rule Utilitarianism?
- What is Act Utilitarianism?
- How hedonism does affect human lives?
- Who defended the classical utilitarianism?
Filed under: Contemporary Moral Problems, eibhrum abram limpin itethic CMP contemporary moral problems
Abram in IT-ETHIC 