Manuel Muyot
ITETHIC – O0A
Review Questions
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
The legend of Gyges is about the ring of Gyges which grants its owner to be invisible at its own will. It was
found by Gyges, a shepherd in service of the King of Lydia. As he headed back to the palace to report the
status of the flocks to the king, he seduced the queen and killed the king. With the story, we can associate
it with the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy. It discusses how things were changed because of having certain
powers. Like in the story, having the power of invisibility made the shepherd act and think like there’s
nothing that can stop him from doing bad things for there will be no evidences against him.
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
Psychological Egoism is view that humans were motivated on what they want or desires and does not use
normative view. It claims that, people helping others was only part of they believe in. For they believe
that doing those things will give them benefits that they are expecting to obtain. On the other hand,
Ethical Egoism uses the normative view of egoism. It states that human acts on their own by not minding
other’s interest.
3.
Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how
does he reply to them?
There were two arguments that were raised by Rachels and these are the following; the description of
one’s action as selfish and the other person’s action as unselfish; and the unselfish actions produce a
sense of self-satisfaction and an action is considered unselfish only at a superficial level of analysis. First,
Rachels said that these arguments were not true for there are some instances that one’s self-interest is
simple to others or does not harm others. With this, actions that were made were what being unselfish
really mean.
4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?
First, the difference of selfishness and self-interest. These two were thought to be most likely the same
for it involves one’s self. Being selfish is having the behavior of thinking about their selves and not
minding others and their interests. While, Self-interest is also about one’s self but not ignoring others for
sometimes it also serves as one’s interest. Second, the hypothesis that every action was done either
because of self-interest or because of other motives. Lastly, was the false statement about one’s interests
was contrary to any concern for the interest of others.
5.
State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this argument?
There are no possibilities that the doctrine of ethical egoism will be maintained for there are consistent
views on how we should act. Thus, we will fall into inconsistency in every time that we try. The reason
why Rachels does not accept this argument for an egoist wants to have a life in a world where they can
make the most out of their self-interest.
6.
According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can
the egoist reply?
The reason why we should not hurt others and why we should help others is for us to be moral and for us
to think about others not only because we know that we can benefit from it.
Discussion Questions
1.
Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what
exactly is his answer?
Yes, Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon which was, “Why be moral?”. His answers were
stating the reasons why a person should not harm others and why help other people.
2.
Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even
people they don’t know?
I, in fact agree with what Rachels says about genuine egoist for I believe that they are truly hard to find.
As a conclusion, it is really a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know as a
definite example of it was giving alms to poor people.
3.
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 believe that it is not immoral or moral for it depend on a person’s self-interests. Self-interest may vary
depending on what an individual would like to have for its interest may have a positive or negative effect
on others.
Review Questions
1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
Morality is our attitude to different forms of behaviour expressed by rules, rights, and obligations while
religion involves worship, beliefs of the supernatural, prayer, institutional forms, and authoritative texts.
2. Why isn't religion necessary for moral motivation?
We were raised as civil people by the training given to us since we were born by our first teachers; our
parents. We do what is right, fair and just because we know it is the right thing to do. When we were kids,
even the others that didn’t have a clue on religion could have moral motivation without religion because
of the good environment that they grew up in.
3. Why isn't religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
Depending on which religion we believe in does a person deem the necessity for moral knowledge. I can
name about 5 different religions that give separate beliefs. So religion can not be a source of moral
knowledge. It is in our perspective on which we choose to be right.
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
The divine command theory says that only God himself can say what is right and wrong and that it is the
only right and wrong. Arthur rejects this theory because of several factors, saying that we believe the
divine command theory. We wouldn’t know what was right and wrong in the story of Adam and Eve is
God did not tell us that it was wrong to eat the apple, if God did not say anything, it would still be right.
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Religion has changed as time goes by, also that they have been influenced by history, politics and law. But
as there is a counter-part for everything, Morality has also influenced religion. To the religious people,
somehow the relationship of both religion and morality extends to the personal level, their ambitions and
the vision on who they wish to be.
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
Morality is inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on socially learned language, is learned from
interactions with others, and governs our interactions with others in society. But it also demands, as
Dewey put it, that we know “with” others, envisioning for ourselves what their points of view would
require along with our own. Conscience demands we occupy the positions of others.
Discussion Questions
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
Yes, he refuted the divine command theory by telling everybody that they should not believe in it; that
people should not believe in a God who is the only authorized person to say what is right or wrong. What
is right and wrong is not bluntly stated in the Bible but the Bible itself builds our own instinct of right and
wrong. Therefore, it is right to say that inherently what is right and wrong comes from God’s words.
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
Animals have been a part of our lives since the world began; they even inhabited the earth before us. And
we have socialized with animals even though we don’t share the same language, or lifestyle and whatnot.
We have spent our lives having a personal relationship with animals. Most of these relationships are
mutual and are still considered social.
3.
What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral
education?
It can be considered as a mean of education about morality but according to Dewey, the only way you can
really learn about it is by imagination. In a way it’s like your conscience.
Discussion Questions
1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what
exactly is his answer?
Yes, Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon which was, “Why be moral?”. His answers
were stating the reasons why a person should not harm others and why help other people.
2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even
people they don’t know?
I, in fact agree with what Rachels says about genuine egoist for I believe that they are truly hard to
find. As a conclusion, it is really a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t
know as a definite example of it was giving alms to poor people.
3.
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 believe that it is not immoral or moral for it depend on a person’s self-interests. Self-interest may
vary depending on what an individual would like to have for its interest may have a positive or
negative effect on others.
Review Questions
1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise their “will to
power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a
master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as distinguished from slavemorality that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy, and love.
2. What is Nietzsche's view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
He said, “to refrain from mutual injury, mutual violence, mutual exploitation, to equate one’s will
with that of another,” is nihilistic. It is a “denial of life.” As a “principle of society,” it is “a principle of
dissolution and decay.” He also said that, “Exploitation pertains to the essence of the living thing as a
fundamental organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic will to power which is precisely the will
to life." This is what he believes in and this is his view on the following. For him, the life of a person
naturally involves injury, violence and exploitation and you can only belong either to the one's who do it
to others or the one being done unto.
3.
Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality?
According to Nietzsche, slave morality takes certain typical characteristics of the “lowest order”
and master morality in slave morality, “good” means “tending to ease suffering” and “evil”
means “tending to inspire fear.” Nietzsche believes that slave morality is expressed in the
standard moral systems. Master morality on the other hand, discusses the opposite. Master
morality is to inspire fear; to inflict injury and exploitation to others.
4. Explain the Will to Power.
According to Nietzsche the goal of Will to Power is essentially engaged in the preservation and
enhancement of itself: The Will wills itself. Thus the Will to Power is essentially an activity of
interpreting aimed at preserving and enhancing life itself. This is Nietzsche's notion of Will to
Power.
Discussion Questions
1. 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?
It is understandable for people to think of it in this manner. Nietzsche does use big words and
use them to divide further the superior from the inferior. They may think it inspired Nazism
because his maser morality takes account on inspiring fear to the weak ones. He believes that life
revolves on the master who dictates everything and inflicts pain on those who don't follow and
the slaves who have no choice but to accept the suffering the master puts on them.
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
To be a creator of values is Nietzsche's overman or in other terms his superman. It is his heroic
individualism that makes a person an overman. He will be the creator of master morality and the likes.
What is “moral isolationism”?
Moral isolationism is the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that
we do not understand. It is essentially a doctrine of immoralist because it forbids any moral reasoning. It
falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of
many influences.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What question does Midgley ask about this custom?
Tsujigiri is a word which literally means crossroads-cut. In the Japanese customs tsujigiri is a samurai
sword had to be tried because if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow,
from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Other wise the warrior bungled his stroke. This could endure
dishonors offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor.
Midgler asked the question “Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures
equally unable to criticize us?” about the tsujigiri.
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism according to Midgley?
Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that we
don’t understand them.
4. What does Midgley think is basis for criticizing other cultures?
Ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them. If I have seen a
person on the way she/he acts and moves then I can simply criticize what is his/her culture because I
think the things you do describes where you came from.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why
or why not?
Moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Immoralists like Nietzsche are
actually just a rather specialized sect of moralists. They can no more afford to put moralizing out of
business than smugglers can to abolish customs regulations. The power of moral judgment is not a luxury,
not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteous. It is a necessity.
Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your
answer.
I disagree with what Midgley’s claim with the idea of separate and unmixed culture is unreal. In our
country, there are people who are considered mixed and unmixed which are really an essential way to
represent their selves, where they belong.