Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The Legend of Gyges is a story of a man who took advantage of having ring with a magical power and used it badly by doing wrong things like killing other people and stealing what they have because he is full of temptations and because he has the power to get whatever he wants because of the magical ring that he has. Questions that should be considered in the legend of the Gyges are: Should the shepherd have the ring until the end, until he destroys other people’s lives? Is the shepherd being unselfish? Do you think he has the authority to do all of those bad things?
Psychological Egoism states that all man in this world is selfish because whatever kind of action they do in different kind of way they are still considered a selfish person because all men in this world are selfish while the Ethical Egoism explains that a person cannot be considered a selfish person because it depends on the situation and what did he do about the situation that occurred it may be because of his own interest but it is still not considered a act of selfishness it is also about how men behave and they are not responsible in anything unless it is for their own interest to do something if a situation or an accident occurs.
Rachel’s discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments and how does he reply to them?
Based on the text Rachel said that the first argument is “If we describe one persons action as a selfish and another person’s action as unselfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact in both cases” While the second argument is “Since so-called unselfish action always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness”
Rachel’s reply on the first argument is that being a selfish and an unselfish person still depends on the situation and because you did something for your own pleasure or satisfaction doesn’t make you a selfish person at all because you did it for the good of others because you didn’t want to hurt them. While on the second argument Rachel’s reply is that people cannot be called selfish if they did something because they will be bothered if they did not do that thing at all and it is not being selfish it is just that person has a good heart and he Is a good and kind person because he is obliged to do this and by doing this base on his own interest doesn’t make him a selfish man at all because he did it from his heart and he may not realize it but if it bothers him to leave someone behind then that means he cares for that person and doesn’t want to hurt their feelings.
What are the three commonplace confusions does Rachel’s detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?
Based on the text “The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with self interest, second confusion is the assumption of every action is one either from self interest or from other regarding motives and the third confusion is the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.”
State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachel’s accept this argument?
Based on the text the argument saying that Ethical egoism is inconsistent is “Ethical egoism is inconsistent because it is impossible for everyone to accept egoism. Because an egoist wants a world in which his own interests are maximized; and if other people adopted the egoist policy of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of his interest, as he pursues his interests to the exclusion of theirs, because he himself is an egoist, while he want others to be altruist.” Rachel doesn’t accept this argument because for him this is totally wrong this egoist just want to have their own world and control other people because they are the real selfish people not us because they are trying to convince us and they are also trying to let us enter their world which is a crazy one because of what they believe Rachel doesn’t accept this argument because these egoist are like other people who wants to be successful where many people will follow them and believe in them and that is wrong because they don’t have the right to control and force the people in what they believe because people has their own lives and they have the right to choose on whom to not listen and listen to.
According to Rachel’s, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?
The egoist will be mad and will not accept it. It means that he doesn’t care about other people at all which means he is the real selfish person because he wants other people to listen and believe in the argument that he had made and he is wrong.
Has Rachel’s answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?
Rachel did not answered the question why be moral because from the very start he had explained egoism and difference of it and did not said anything about moral.
Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachel’s claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know?
For me Genuine Egoist is rare because they think differently than others and for sure they have wild ideas going through their head. It is a fact that people care about others even if they don’t know it because there are all human beings and they all have feelings like when a student gives money to the poor who is asking for money it means that they care for them because they want to help the that’s why he gave them money even if its just a coin.
Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self interest. Is such a view immoral or not?
I don’t think it is immoral because you are not doing wrong or killing anyone you are just convincing them using words not actions it will be immoral if you use actions but when you use words to convince other people I don’t think it is immoral at all.
According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
Morality and religion are different for Arthur because Morality is social morality is doing the right thing and not doing wrong things and Religion is necessary in relation to morality because religion is not related to morality at all because you don’t have to always think about the religion when your doing something.
Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Religion isn’t necessary for moral motivation because not all people are thinking if they will be caught or not and religion and morality are not related at all because it is about doing the right thing and not thinking about the religion at all it is about the motive of other people on how they do it not on who they believe in and the religion they have.
Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
Religion isn’t necessary for moral knowledge because We cannot always depend on religion if we are doing something because we also don’t know if believing in that religion is right at all because like Arthur said we have to do and believe what is right because it is what we know is right for ourself.
What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
Based on the text according to Mortimers view, “the divine command theory would mean that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature has to statues it enacts: without Gods commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statues.” Arthur rejected this theory because for him even if an act is right it can be also on the other hand that the thing that is wrong or we believe is bad are also good because for him if god would not command us to do a thing it is not wrong and if we did not follow his command then we had done wrong.
According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Even if Arthur said that morality and religion are not related at all they are still connected. They are connected because there are some things left that we should consider first when we do a thing and the religion is created because of morality because of what is happening every person has a religion and each religion has their own laws they make this laws and they are basing it to the morality of people that is why morality and religion are related but they are still different.
Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
Arthur stated that Dewey we should make our self and our moral conscience public, we should always consider our decision and the decision that others make because we are a one society and we should always think about the our conscience and the pity we have to other people and because it depends on the social language that we learn to other people because by socializing with other people this moral will start to grow like a matured person who knows a lot already because morality is just a little kid who is at first small but when it gets older it gets bigger and has a lot of problems coming like the morality at first morality is just about like that but we don’t realized that morality isn’t about morality it has many kinds and it is also related to other religion or study.
Has Arthur refused the divine command theory? If not. How can it be defended?
Yes Arthur refused the divine command theory because at the first place he said that religion is not necessary to morality.
If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to non human animals?(Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to it in the footnote6)
We have obligation to non human animals because these non human animals are animals like us they are also a living thing who is born like us like a baby and dies they can eat and walk and even though they are not talking we can also communicate them by always talking to them which make us sociable to animals especially dogs.
What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics-class count as a moral education?
Moral education is the study on the morality and the dos and don’ts in the society or in everything. I think ethics class can be a moral education because ethics and morals are somehow related because it is the study if what our doing is right or wrong.
How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
For Nietzsche a good and healthy society is a society that is not tempted to do anything and will not took advantage to the chances that will be made but they will be called a good and healthy society because they protect other people because they care for them and will do everything just to protect them for their own sake.
Nietzsche thinks that people should not do this they should not be thinking about each others strengths and weaknesses but rather they should be thinking on how to be united and how to treat each other equally.
Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality
Master Morality is the morality of the master which is the power he has but for sure he is a good person because he is the master and he needs to treat his servants equally and fairly while the slave morality is the study of the morality of the slave who is treated badly and they are scared because they are unfairly treated and because they are a slave.
Explain the will of power.
The will of power is to have or gain our own power by having this power we have to know first our strengths and weaknesses because it is the most important thing and we live because we have our own will of power.
Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?
For me it is not dangerous because Nietzsche just expressed his feelings and he did not kill anyone like the Nazis did he just wrote something like Jose Rizal did people should not be threatened about it because it is just about his point view and people has different point of views and Nietzsche is one of them who is just stating his own opinion.
What does it mean to be “creator of values”?
Creator of values means he creates his own values and believes in it because it is for himself and he recognize his self very well.
What is “moral isolationism”?
Based on the text Moral Isolationism is “the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand”.
Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does midgley ask about this custom?
It is about a culture where they have this sword which they have to practice if it is really sharp because one mistake will ruin everything and their reputation will be in danger that is why to test if the sword of the samurai is really sharp they used real people to test if this is really true by using it on them. The questions that midgley asked about this custom is “Was he in a position to deliver a damning indictment? Would we ourselves be qualified to deliver such an indictment on the samurai, provided we could spend two weeks in the acient japan? What do we really think about this? “
What is wrong with Moral Isolationism, according to Midgley?
Moral Isolations is wrong because other cultures should not follow their rituals and cultures because it is immoral and does not think of what they are doing at all.
What does Midgley think is the basis of criticizing other cultures?
Midgley said that we should first analyze our own culture before analyzing the culture of other people because it is important. Why should we criticize other people’s cultures if we don’t know what our culture all about is and if it is also criticized by other nationality?
Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?
I don’t think Nietzsche is an immoralist because he just said his own opinion by having a will of power and it is not wrong to have a own will power and it is not immoral at all because this base on how far you can go and how strong you are and he just talked about Morality is social and not something about immorality.
Do you agree that Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Ex
I do not agree because everyone has their own culture and that makes them unique because of what they follow and what they tradition is and we cannot do something about this because this is what they believe even if it is immoral for us we still don’t have the right to interfere in what is happening to them because it a culture and they are always following it that is why we have to respect their decision and respect for what they are.
State and explain the principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.
Based on the text “the principle of utility does not mean any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given pleasure. They are desired and desirable in and for themselves; besides being means they are a part of the end.” This means that the principle of utility is about the happiness of a person. If a person steals money and lied to other people they are happy with it because this is what they want but doing this thing is wrong even if it gives you the feeling of happiness.
How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
Mill is not happy about how the Epicureanism is said to be a doctrine only for swine because if we will compare a human and non human being they are still different in many ways a non human being as we know has a limited pleasure of happiness because we don’t understand each other at all while the human beings is I think has unlimited pleasure of happiness because we do understand each other and they are different because for me the human being are capable of having a happiness or pleasures and they should not be compared to animals or nun human beings.
How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
Higher pleasure is the highest level of pleasure where you have desires for a certain thing or to other people while lower pleasures can be the lowest level of all pleasures and is easily achieved because it is the lowest level of all.
According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
According to Mill we should measure the happiness of other people.
Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of utility.
Principle of utility is desirable and being desirable does not mean giving them any pleasure it is because it is what they want and it is what makes them happy but the answer still depends on the situation. The principle of utility does not give you happiness because of the pleasure you are feeling it gives you the feeling of happiness because you are happy and this is what you want.
Having a pleasure can make someone happy but not truly happy because if you feel pleasure you are just reaching the point of happiness and it is not sure if it will be successful or not and having this pleasure doesn’t mean you’re truly happy and will forever be happy because It is just temporary pleasure so it cannot be called happiness and even though it is only pleasure there won’t be pain existing because your trap in what you think and what you feel about pleasure and happiness so I think you won’t feel any pain because of the pleasure or happiness that you are feeling.
Does mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
Yes, because for me higher pleasures are hard to achieved and the highest level of all and it is the right term for that it is better than the lower ones because of course it is the highest level of pleasure at all we can compare it to a 1st honor student which is better than the 10th honor student. A person who prefers lower pleasures over the higher ones are not confident and doesn’t have the courage to work hard to have a higher pleasure because they are scared enough.
Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility” Is this true or not?
For me it is true because utility is about a person’s happiness and a person’s happiness does exist and happiness must also be achieved by our own means but we also should think of other people’s happiness because they are part of our world and they are our co-human beings.
Many commentators have thought that Mills proof of the principle of utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to re formulate the proof so that it is not defective?
I don’t think Mills proof is defective because if we will analyze it some of his words are true that principle of utility is not just about giving pleasure it is about having happiness and I think happiness is more important than desiring or having a pleasure.