Carlos Alberto I. Osorio
It-Ethic
Paul Pajo
01/25/2011
James Rachel: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Review Quetions:
1) Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story? The
legend of Gyges is about a sheperd who found a ring, which could turn you invisible upon
wearing it, in a fissure opened by an eartquack. So he used this ring to in order to be invisible
that gave him the power to enter the Royal Palace where he seduced the queen and murdered
the king. This story raised two questions on what a rouge and a man with virtue will do when
given the power to be invisible. How their actions might differ or be the same whether they will
use this power to give them advantage or to help others.
2) Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Physical egoism is the view that all men
are selfish in everything that they do and the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self
interest, while ethical egoism is a normative view about how men should act. It’s a view that
men have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interests.
3) Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and
how does he reply to them? One argument describes the fact that if one person’s actions is
considered as selfish, and another person’s action as unselfish we are overlooking the crucial
fact that both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing
what he most wants to do. The other argument is described as follows, “Since so-called unselfish
actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent and since this sense of
satisfaction is a pleaste state of consciousness, it follows that the point of action is really to
achieve a pleasant state of consciousness rather than to bring about any goods for others. He
replied to these arguments as being un real or not true.
4) What three common place confusions does Rachels detect in th thesis of psychological
egoism? The three different confusions are: the confucion of selfishness with self-interest, the
assumption that every action is done either from self interest or from other motives, and the
common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welldare is incompatible with any
genuine concern for the welfare of others.
5) State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this arguments? “There is no way to maintain the doctrine of ethical egoism as a consistent
view about how we ought to act. We will fall into inconsistency whenever we try.” He doesn’t
accept this argument since he believes that we need only to interpret the egoist’s position in a
sympathetic way in order for ethical egoism to be maintained consistently.
6) Accoring to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we heal others? How can
the egoist reply? Accoring to him, we shouldn’t hurt others because other people will get hurt,
and we should heal others so that other people will benefit from it. By this, the egoist’s theories
will all be disagreed on.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what
exactly is his answer? Yes he has answered it by saying that “we tend to be moral because it is
not for ourselves but for the sake of others.”
2. Are genuine egosists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others
even people they don’t know? Yes, they are rare. And I believe that most people won’t really
care about other people as much as they would care for the people they know.
3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of
others are never in one’s own self-interest. Is suc h a view immoral or not? I don’t think it’s
immoral, because it’s not like he wants to harm them, it’s just not his interest to be part of them
or wasting his time to think on what he’ll do to benefit them.
John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience
Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? According to Arthur, morality
involves more our attitudes toward various forms of behavior which are usually expressed using
the notions of rules, rights, and obligations, while religion usually involves prayers, worship,
beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms, and authoritive texts.
2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation? Religion isn’t necessary for moral
motivation since whenever we do something, we base our decision on other reasons such as the
consequences of being caught, or being seen doing the wrong thing. This shows that most of our
motives for doing the right thing has nothing to do with religion.
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Religion isn’t necessary as a
soruce of moral knowledge since we will need to know a whole lot about religion in order for us
to use this as a source for moral guidance.
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? Divine command
theory basically states out that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislature
has to statues it entacts, and without God’s commands there would be no moral rules, just as
without a legislature there would be no statues. Arthur rejects this theory since he believes that
what the theory is trying to imply isn’t very clear since it states out that actions are right when
God commands it, and an action is wrong if He doesn’t command it. But then again if God didn’t
command us to do certain things then they won’t necessarily be wrong.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? They are connected because
people need religious motivation in order to be guided into doing what is right, since it gives
them more knowledge and wisdom of what is right and what is wrong.
6. Dewet says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? According to
Arthur, this means that morality cannot exist without social perspective introduced by others,
and this social nature ties it specially with education and public discussions.
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? He has
refuted it because he believes that what the theory is trying to imply isn’t very clear since it
states out that actions are right when God commands it, and an action is wrong if He doesn’t
command it. But then again if God didn’t command us to do certain things then they won’t
necessarily be wrong.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman
animals? Animals has been part of our society, and therefore we are obliged to treat them with
respect as well.
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral
education? He means that we should put ourselves in other people’s shoe in order to know how
we must act, and at the same time reflecting without ourselves of our actions. I believe that a
college ethics class could count as moral education because it makes as reflect on our actions.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave- Morality
Review Questions:
1. How does Nietzshe characterize a good and healthy society? Nietzshe characterizes a good and
healthy society as a society which allwos superior individuals to exercise their will to power,
their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. Then the superior person will
follow a master-morality which will emphasize power, strenght, egoism, and freedom as
distinguished from a slave morality which usually calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and
love.
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation? Nietzsche points out that we
must all refrain ourselves from injury, violence and exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with
that of others resulting to a sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary
conditions are given.
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality. Master morality is when the good
man arouses fear and seeks to arouse it while the bad man is considered to be the despicable
being. On the other hand slave morality is when the evil man arouses fear.
4. Explain the Will to Power. Nietzshe explains the Will to Power as the main driving force in man
such as achievement, ambition, and the determination in striving to reach the highest possible
position in life.
Discussion Questions:
1. Some people view Nietzshe’s writing as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have
charged Nietzshe with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not? It
is justified not because Nietzche is a harmful person, but because his view shows how a master
will dictate what to do and show superirity over the weak ones, which resebmles the
characteristics of Nazism.
2. What does it mean to be “acreator of values”? This means that a man will have a heroic
individualism which will make a person an overman where he then will be the creator of master
morality.
Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
Review Questions:
1. What is “moral isolationism”? Moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that
we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand.
2. Explain the Japanse custom of tsujiairi. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
Tsujiairi is a custom done by the Japanse samurais where they test new sword on wayfarers. It is
very important for samurais to sliche through someone with a single hit, or he would lose his
honor and respect if he’s not able to perform this. Midgley uses this custom since for Japanese
this may be right since it’s their custom, but do other people who practice different custom
agree on this. So Midgley asks if people with other custom question the custom of others that
they are unfamiliar with?
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? Accorinding to Midgley, what’s
wrong with it is that people will usually take up and accept the custom of others just because
they think shows respect if they do so, but it’s not really respectful to simply accept other
people’s cultures without really trying to understanding it.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticisizing other cultures? She believes that the basis
for criticisizing other cultures is to first prove that it is being harmful to the general moral
teachings.
Discussing Questions:
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of
Nietzsche? Why or why not? No, because we all have our own point of view upon things and we
don’t have the right to judge others whether they are moral or immoral.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of seperate and unmixed cultures is unreal?
Explain your answer. Yes I do agree, since now a day whether we realize it or not, our lifestyle
has been a mixture of several cultures from one continent to another. And as people migrate
from one country to another, they inherit new cultures along with their culture of tradition.